Hi,

My name is Sandeep Bajaj.

I have been judging tournaments for the last year or so.

I am looking for participants to speak clearly and slowly.

Please use your creativity as well as data-driven reasoning to make your points.

I look forward to listening to your speeches and debates

Sandeep

(sandeep_bajaj@yahoo.com)

hi sorry writing this super last minute so it’s really short but if you have any questions please feel free to ask before round starts!!!

i'm a sophomore at pitzer college. i did high school speech and debate for four years and competed in about 10 different events. in debate i mainly did parli and congress, but i do have experience with lay policy.

PARLI: i want to see a debate with a lot of CLASH!! i don’t want to just hear you restate the same points in every speech, and i’ll probably dock you speaker points if that’s all you do. i protect the flow. i vote completely off the flow unless there are blatant lies that are harmful to the educational aspect of parliamentary debate. use your pois!! be clear and articulate, interact with your opponents, and don’t drop arguments. also remember that you are doing SPEECH and debate so make sure to use some speech skills to convince me that your side is the right one!! i expect you guys to time yourselves and keep each other in check. i won't listen to anything past the agreed upon grace period. being overly rude to your opponents will dock you speaker points.

CONGRESS: be memorable--in your speaking style, intro+conclusion, arguments, rhetoric, etc. want speeches with clash and actual acknowledgement of what other people have said even if it's just to agree with them/build on their point. i flow general ideas/points from your speeches

i think i hit all the main points but definitely ask for clarifications if you need them

good luck :)

Hi, I am a software engineer by profession, and have been judging for over a year now.

It is an absolute pleasure to have an opportunity to judge with NSA.

For Congress debate, here is what am looking for

-- Speak clearly, slowly and confidently

-- Showcase thinking skills and critical analysis of issues.

-- Organize your content - Intro, Body, conclusion

-- Present with a good combination of quantitative stats, and qualitative case studies and quotations from experts

-- During Q&A, be courteous when you get an opportunity to speak , and ask/answer with brevity, confidence and clarity.

-- For Presiding officer - Time keeping, fairness in handling the questions, display command in handling procedures and general delivery.

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

Right off the bat… I do not like rehash- try to refresh the debate

EVIDENCE is crucial….DATE IT, its how judges compare impacts

be respectful…. Attack contentions not debaters

I like to see you into the debate besides good arguments, which means voice tone and performance can also take you a long way with me,

Typically I dont rank PO’s in top 6 however if the job is done well with little to no mistakes it is always a slight chance.

CLASH IS CRUCIAL, I always appreciate a good round winning speech that SHUTS DOWN the opposition to close the debate in a full circle,

anyway have fun be concise be convincing and be entertaining

:)

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

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and/or receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last.

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

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is the minimum expectation in debate rounds. Make sure that the speech you give fits where you give it (i.e., extemping a rebuttal on the third cycle vs. reading a prepared speech in the third cycle for Congress). I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals! See below for more detailed information for events.


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS EVERYTHING!

I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round, factoring in questions, speeches, and in-round behavior. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, fully impacted out arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a parent judge with two years of experience evaluating Congress, I recommend that speakers avoid speaking too quickly and strive for clear and emotionally expressive communication.

During the presentation, make sure to incorporate effective hand gestures, maintain consistent eye contact, project your voice with a commanding presence, convey passion rather than aggression, vary your vocal tones, speeds, and volumes, ensure fluency in your speech, walk purposefully on key points, maintain a conversational pace, and most importantly, conclude on time, adhering to the schedule.

Being a PO carries significant responsibilities, and I usually provide good ratings. Minor errors are acceptable, but if repeated mistakes persist, there's a possibility that your rank might be affected.

Hi, my name is Parker De Dekér (He/Him), I'm a Student at Columbia University in New York where I study Latin American & Caribbean Studies and Cognitive Science and I work as a Research Advisor at the Bahamian Mission to the UN and IDB. I'm also the Assistant Coach for Congress at Taipei American School, and do a lot of committee and organizational work throughout the Speech & Debate Community.

While in High School, I got some variety of exposure to any and every event that our community has to offer, so rest-assured I come from an experience background where I'm happy to see you run whatever you want, as long as it's respectful and has a place in the round.

Congressional Debate

Repetition & Refutation: The recurrence of similar ideas in the first two cycles of debate is okay; subsequently, I either want to hear new points that highlight the issues brought forward to focus on achieving a resolution or I want to be listening to you refute your opponent's points. I respond to engaging speeches with dynamic responses to specific arguments mentioned earlier in the round and points of note referenced by the speaker’s name; it demonstrates you are actively listening to others and formulating new material as the round progresses. A memorable speech that I can flow assists me when filling out my rankings upon completing the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is a Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when getting your point across, especially if you are trying to emphasize or embolden certain points. I prefer to see open, engaging dialogue over a flurry of nonsensical interjections. I enjoy speakers that show a genuine passion for what they are talking about.

As the round goes on and the material becomes more repetitive, I WILL flow less of what is presented. If you are debating in a later cycle and still want a place on my ballot, you need to fight for it, that comes by distinguishing yourself stylistically. Refute your opponents' arguments, weigh the round, and if you are one of the final speakers PLEASE CRYSTALIZE. I will give you higher speaker points if you attempt on crystal speech and do okay, rather than give a constructive one with no refutation and do great. In my opinion, crystallizing the round is a difficult task; if you do it well, I'll remember you!

Decorum: As a judge, I appreciate your ability to respect your PO, Parliamentarian, Competitors, and Judges with formal language and modest amounts of well-timed humor. It is your responsibility to ensure you monitor time signals and adhere to PO policies.

Equity and inclusion are integral points in how I judge a round. I expect to hear demonstrated efforts to make a round more inclusive for others through the usage of correct terminology, proper pronouns, etc. Explicit acts to infringe upon a person's identity, including, but not limited to, their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other such disregard, will result in an immediate drop in ranking status.

Presiding: As an experienced Parliamentarian (and High School PO) I'm very familiar with the intricacies of presiding. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I hope you are decently experienced. If you are stepping up to preside, I will take that into account when filling out my rankings; however, if you say you are an experienced PO, list a whole bunch of tournaments you've presided at, and then still fail to provide efficient presiding, I'm going to consider that a bluff, and include comments about it in your RFD. Even if I'm not the parliamentarian, I will still be keeping track of precedence and recency and your employment of Roberts Rules of Order. I consider efficient, organized, and experienced POs equivalent to quality speakers and will rank my POs on the same level during the round. I appreciate a well-run chamber where all parties are held to the highest standard and will make a note of those who rise to the occasion.

Public Forum:

I will flow everything in the round, even Cross-Ex, so if your opponent asks a question in cross-ex and you don't carry that argument through the round, I'm going to believe that you either weren't paying attention in Cross or you are not responding to the question; however, if you are the one answering the question and your counter never appears later in the round, I'm also dropping it from the flow. I encourage you to run whatever you like; however, I enjoy progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, a public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree. Still, it should also be a learning opportunity, so responding to abuses of the debating environment (T-Shell), introducing frameworks (I wish I didn't have to mention this, but I do), moral imperatives and interpretations are all appreciated. That said, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I will be a little concerned; save this for varsity. In terms of speed, I've competed in almost every debating style, so I am very familiar and comfortable with spreading; however, I'm not a big fan of spreading in PF, so fast paces are okay, spreading to a point that puts your competitor and a disadvantage will be labeled as abusive, please don't do this.

What I Love to See: Impact calculus- it is the most important thing to me; please weigh & please tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be.

A few things I hate in rounds:

- Swearing, I wish it were obvious but you would be surprised. This lacks professionalism if it is not needed to make points. Same goes for using basic filler such as like, um, literally, err, but, stupid, etc. If you use these, your not going to get a 30 from me for your speaker points.

- "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, if you are sitting for more than 15 seconds without telling me that you are taking prep, having tech issues, etc, I'm going to start the prep clock.

- Experienced debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced.

-Straight Theory Arguments: Are done to death, and aren't making either debater better. If it wins, I'll still pick you up, but I would prefer to see educational rounds.

-Do not run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent, and then you have a case completely against your opponent. This demonstrates that you lied about the fairness argument; I'm dropping it.

-DEBATE SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUSIVE! The usage of any verbiage or dialogue that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, classist, or abusive will result in an immediate loss of the round, and a speaker score below 20, this is not tolerated while I am a judge.

Lincoln Douglas & Policy:

1. I will be flowing all of the debate, but I appreciate it when you slow down on the authors and taglines, even if you are spreading. I'm very comfortable with spreading, but I ask that you put me on the email chain parker.dedeker@gmail.com

2. Even in complex debates in LD and CX, I want to see the debate a clear storyline that properly compares the resolution to the context of the squo, and explains how arguments within the round interact with one another. I'm a huge lover of Phil. debate, but not framework debate. I don't want to make it to the 2AR and still be arguing about what the Value/VC is for the round. If there is no way for you to adopt the same value for the res then just provide a holistic approach to explaining how your args can suffice both values and criteria for the round.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I am often more invested when you approach the aff case with new and innovative arguments that still engage with the topic.

4. Please know what you’re talking about. The easiest way for you to lose a round is to look for an argument that is "irrefutable," "shiny" or non-topical because it sounds good and like an easy win, but then have no tangible way of continuing the argument without sole reliance on the card. When students are well-read/versed on the things that they are reading, and have an ability to care and genuinely understand them, I am easily engaged and feel better positions to vote for you. That being said, being well-read does equate to using complex jargon all the time. This is not really appealing to me, and can also come off as an unfair approach to the round, especially because not every team/school has the resource to equip them with these complexities. If your wording doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate, I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. Progressive Debate: So this has become a huge debate in recent years on the circuit, and coming from Wisconsin, I'm used to competitors being dropped for running prog, but surprisingly, I absolutely love progressive debate. I will vote for Theory, T debates, Kritik, plans, CPs, etc, but I do not believe that running a progressive approach is a necessarily substantive response to certain arguments. This being established, if you choose to run a Prog case, there are a few things you need to do: prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, and actual education lost for T debates. Establish why the resolution cannot be debated and why you have to run a CP/Plan (your DAs need to be crystal clear and need to be used to set up the case before you move into the CP in the 1NC) or provide me with genuine context about why the philosophy, theory, or kritik holds more validity to be debated over the topicality within the round. While I love prog debate, my caveat is--you need to know your audience. If you have a competitor who is in a position where they cannot respond to your arguments because of their complexity/lack of literature to disprove or position your competitor within the round where they cannot logistically win the round in your own opinion, then I cannot vote for the prog arguments, because it doesn't allow the debate to be educational.

All Events: If you ever need an explanation of your feedback, or want a more in-depth response, email me parker.dedeker@gmail.com I WILL NEVER leave you a blank ballot. If this happens, it is a mistake, please send me an email, and I'll see what I can do.

Best of luck to you in your rounds today and tomorrow. Your speaking will change lives, even if it is just one, I promise.

Hello, I am a parent Judge, and I have some experience through judging congress. I value good speaking and clear argumentation. Most of all, respect your competitors and don’t be rude or aggressive.

I am a more traditional or (as the circuit debaters like to say) "lay" judge. This is my first year judging, but I have judged different types of debate this year at local, regional and national tournaments. I have some experience judging this topic at the national qualifying tournament. I do not consider myself an expert on debate, philosophy or science, so I do not have strong biases or opinions. I will consider all arguments that are well-developed and non-offensive. That said, quality of presentation and delivery will have a strong influence on my decision. So to get my ballot, bring your "A" game in terms of public speaking and logical argumentation. Leave debate jargon and spreading at home. I look forward to judging your round.

In essence, I am a parent judge so do not spread. Do not run a K on neg or aff. Other arguments are fine, however, make them reasonable and explain them well enough so I do not need to have background information on them. No mumbling and have clarity in speech.

Good luck, have fun, and use feedback as learning.

Hello! Some background on me: My name is Kino Farr, and I am a UC Berkeley Rhetoric graduate.. I did speech & debate for 6 years before transferring to university and have been judging since I was in high school, so I'm an experienced judge, don't worry.

Onto my paradigm:

Keep the debate theory out of this - I know how it works, but I focus on points and flow.

Enjoy yourself - I want to see that you're having a good time, otherwise, it's no fun for anybody. I want everybody to have a good time, so just take a deep breath and relax your shoulders before you speak. It'll be okay and you'll do great.

I think that's it? Cool

oh wait one more thing… NO SPREADING! I want you to PRESENT to me, NOT READ.

Hello!!

My name is Chans (pronounced chance) (she/her), and I'm currently a sophomore at UT (Public Relations). I did speech and debate for two years in high school, with competition experience in Congress, trad LD, and Extemp, and judging experience in all of the above plus OO, Info, PF, and World Schools Debate (albeit I still have some trouble understanding the mechanics of the event). I try to make my ballots as helpful and detailed as possible for the sake of your growth as a debater, but, of course, that might not always be the case. If you have any questions about my decision or ballot, I'm more than happy to discuss and provide more insight so don't be afraid to shoot me an email!chansfrench.cf@gmail.com

If I'm your judge for an event that isn't detailed below, you're welcome to ask if I have any preferences!

Congress

This is by far my favorite event and the event I have the most experience in. I mainly use argumentation and how much you advance the debate as the way I will evaluate you as a speaker, and delivery is the last thing I consider. Next to each section, there's a rough percentage breakdown of how I will evaluate your performance, but I'm not a human calculator so if it seems I strayed away from this metric in your ballot, I most likely did.

argumentation (50%): Please don't rehash arguments. Duh. If you want to emphasize a point another speaker made, cool, please do, but there is a big difference between rehashing and building upon other's arguments by bringing in new warrants, impacts, or analyses. It'll be a yawnfest if you just repeat what 3 other people already said, and it honestly doesn't matter how good your speech is stylistically, there's no way you're getting my 1 that way. If you plan on going late, don't read a constructive. If I'm judging your prelims round and you don't weigh as speaker 10 or later, you have some grace but if this is finals, auto 9.

I want to hearARGUMENTS. I've been in my fair share of local congress rounds where every speaker is reading a different, independent, 100% prewritten speech that contributes nothing new/substantial to the flow of the round. You can have the most beautiful speech, but unless it's engaging with other points so far, it's not gonna score you as high. I have been guilty of this myself, so I get it. Being adaptable is the easiest way to stand out in a room full of 3-minute infos.

advancing the debate (40%): Analysis, comparatives, and weighing!!!! I want to hear the implications that the points in your speech make to the overall flow of the round. How does your aff respond or disprove the last neg? What piece of evidence did you just read that completely changes the flow of the debate? Why is what you're saying so important to your side, how is it changing what we know about the round thus far, and why should I care as a judge (or non-congressperson if you're a true LARPer). In other words: BE ADAPTABLE.

delivery (10%): I'm insanely lenient with how you choose to deliver your speech (legal pad, clipboard, laptop, iPad, sheet of paper, nothing at all), as long as YOU feel comfortable, that's all I care about. I understand being in the position of having not padded my speech and feeling like my performance will suffer because of it. Please feel free to do whatever you want with your delivery. Fluency breaks are normal and are not that big of a deal in my eyes, so show confidence in what you’re saying and the rest will follow. I also don't really care about structure as long as your arguments are good and you're making sense, don't stress about it.

misc/personal preferences:

1. Be respectful, yelling at each other or being aggressive during cross is one of the easiest ways to get ranked pretty low, and be mindful of each other’s pronouns, especially if they are visible on placards. I have been PO in multiple rounds where I have had to remind the chamber of a speaker's pronouns multiple times. It is very uncomfortable for everyone involved so just please be respectful.
   
   

2. If you're going to give a humorous/stylized intro, please make sure the topic is appropriate, but otherwise, I love to hear some of your personality shine through!! Be warned though, I've watched an ungodly amount of congress rounds, and was in at least one every weekend for two years, so if you give a canned intro, I will most likely know and call you out on it.
   
   

3. POs will typically rank in my 3-8 depending on your performance and the performance of others in the round. You either have to be doing a really bad job as PO or it be a really good room of speakers for you to get dropped. I will generally try to make sure that PO's will always have a chance of breaking out of prelims.

Content warnings are super important and you should ALWAYS provide them if necessary, but also remember if you have content in your speech that requires a CW, your judges and PO cannot leave the room during your speech.

TL;DR: Be adaptable, coherent, and respectful.

LD

i'm indifferent to how you choose to share your speech doc with me. my email is in this paradigm, i'm also cool with speech drop.

tech > truth, but in a trad way!

be respectful and clear and you'll get high speaks, be rude, passive-aggressive, or mean, i'm dropping your speaks. if you're experienced and hitting a novice, and way overdoing beating them, i'm tanking your speaks.

I mainly competed in trad/UIL LD, but I will evaluate any argument (tech > truth like i said), as long as I can follow the argument link chain. theory is okay, as long as it's clear what I'm supposed to be voting on, and it's conducive to a better debate space. if you run frivolous or unnecessary theory shells, I am tanking your speaks. speed is okay as long as you have a doc that I can follow. my hearing has gotten worse over the past few years, so if you choose no doc (fine by me) i do ask that you speak as clearly as possible.

If you can't explain your argument without relying on your evidence during cross or as a “warrant", you’ll have a hard time convincing me why you should get my ballot.cards ≠ warrants. think of your arguments like a sandwich; your claims, warrants, and impacts are the meat, bread, and cheese respectively, while your evidence is the mayo. you still have a sandwich without the evidence, but you do not without the warrants. please do not claim cards as warrants i beg.

PF

I'll evaluate anything. PLEASE don't read a K or theory (unless it is ACTUALLY conducive to a better debate space). there's not enough time and I will not know what to do with it on my flow. I prefer a good traditional PF round, with all your typical things. Weighing is one of the most important things to me in PF, as long as you're doing it (WELL), thats all I care about.

Extemp

I only competed in extemp as a supplement to congress, so my preferences are a lot more surface-level. Evidence is important, but I care way more that you can explain the points you are making in detail with good use of analysis. It's a yawnfest if all you're doing is telling me claims and cards. substructure is cool, try to have fun with it. fluency breaks happen, it's normal. just shake it off and keep going. you won't auto 6 if you break fluency or pause for a second.

Debate can be a highly stressful, emotionally, and physically taxing activity. Remember to give yourself some grace, stay hydrated, and take breaks when you can. Good luck!

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

I'm a parent of an experienced debater. I've judged mostly congress for 6 years and some PF as well at fairly high levels.

Ask for my congress paradigm verbally before the round starts. It's pretty simple, I trust that most of you know what to do.

PF:

I am a lay judge. I want to see clearly established links and easy to follow arguments. I do not want to get lost in my flow trying to make sense of your argument. I will still evaluate an argument if I have to make some leaps of logic but I'm less likely to evaluate it to the strength that you intend. As for responses, I want both refutation and weighing. Just because a response exists, doesn't mean it is good enough to take out the argument. I need to buy that your response does what you say. I always want to see weighing, debate is a comparative activity. The side that wins is the side that is better, not the side that is right. For frontlines, I don't want a repetition of your argument, I've heard it already. I want to hear, very clearly, what your response to the refutation is, there's multiple speeches for a reason.

As for speaking, I'm not a huge fan of speed. I'd prefer if you slowed it down a little. Slightly faster conversational is what I prefer. I want fluid speaking for high speaker scores. A little variation always helps me follow a long. If you have any massive fluency meltdowns, unintentional pauses, or just get obviously stumped at any points during your speech I'll deduct speaker points heavily, and depending on how bad it is, it can cost you the round.

Lastly, I highly value adaptability in debate. If your opponent says something that has you completely lost, it's not a good look and it can cost you the round.

Parent judge. You know the drill. Good luck!

"Surprise me!" - Anton Ego, Ratatouille

FOR EVERYONE:

Do NOT bring up victims of police brutality just for your intros or as an additional piece of evidence you immediately move on from. people's lives should not be used as a piece of 'gotcha' evidence or a card to win a judge. if you are ignoring people's humanity to win a round you are not doing this activity correctly.

For Congress:

40% presentation, 60% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. your job as the author/sponsor is to explain how the mechanisms of your legislation work, not just give the first aff speech-explain what your legislation does and how it solves the problems in the status quo. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male presenting competitors as 'representative/senator' and female presenting competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. If you are aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you. Please give me clear impacts and ask questions often. I also coach extemp, so I don't want to see you just reading a prewritten speech off your legal pad. I love good POs and I will rank you high for it!

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow cross. As long as you're not an LD or Policy debater turned PF debater, I'll be fine with your speed (as long as your constructive is under 900 words you're probably fine). I need impacts and clear taglines. Organization is a huge thing for me. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. SIGNPOST. If you are rude in cross I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. If you run a K I will drop you. Also I do not flow the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to be able to find it on my ballot-give me a source name, a key word or phrase, something.

For IEs:

Your Infos/Oratories should all have quality cited evidence. Your Infos should give me impacts, and your Oratories should have solutions. For Interp, you should not be performing a character with a disability piece if you do not have that disability. In Humor ESPECIALLY, if you do a racist caricature/accent, I will drop you. Please use good judgement.

Email: erinmguiney@gmail.com

As a parent judge, my primary goal is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants. While I may not have extensive debate experience, I bring a fresh perspective and a commitment to evaluating arguments on their merit.

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I appreciate clear and concise communication.
   • Please articulate your arguments logically and coherently.
   • Ensure that your speeches have a clear structure with well-defined points.

2. Argumentation:

   • I value well-reasoned and supported arguments.
   • Provide solid evidence and warranting to back your claims.
   • Avoid reliance on jargon; explain complex concepts for clarity.

3. Engagement with Opponent's Arguments:

   • Demonstrating an understanding of your opponent's arguments is crucial.
   • Refute opposing points with logic and evidence rather than dismiss them outright.
   • Acknowledge valid points made by the opposition when applicable.

4. Cross-Examination:

   • Use cross-examination to clarify and strengthen your arguments.
   • Both questioning and responding should be respectful and focused on substance.
   • Points gained in cross-examination will be considered in my decision.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adjust your strategy based on your opponent's case and my feedback.
   • Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness to the flow of the debate is essential.

6. Speaker Style:

   • While speaking style is subjective, I appreciate speakers who maintain professionalism.
   • Non-verbal communication, such as body language and eye contact, can enhance your presentation.

7. Impact and Significance:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments.
   • Explain why your case matters and how it outweighs or interacts with your opponent's case.

8. Fairness and Respect:

   • Treat your opponents, your partner, and me with respect.
   • Avoid any behavior that may compromise the integrity of the debate round.

9. Learning Experience:

   • Understand that my feedback is intended to be constructive.
   • Use the round as an opportunity for personal and collective growth in debate skills.

10. Final Focus:

    • Your final speeches should crystallize the key issues and emphasize why you should win the round.
    • Summarize and weigh the most critical arguments for a compelling conclusion.

Remember, I am here to learn and appreciate the effort you put into your debates. Good luck, and let's have a productive and enjoyable round!

Dougherty Valley '19 | UC Davis '23 | keshavharanath@gmail.com

I competed for 4 years in mainly Circuit Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking but I have also dabbled in Impromptu.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

For Speakers:

In a Nutshell: The more memorable (for better) that you are, the higher you will rank.

Congress is a debate event. Unless you are presenting an authorship or sponsorship speech, clash/refutation is a must. I believe that the later you speak in round, the more important refutation becomes. This doesn't mean that you have to refute all minor and major arguments. Rather, the later you present in round, the more I think you have the burden of selectively and strategically refuting. I am a big fan of speakers who crystallize near the end of the round so if you are speaking last or near last, a good crystallization speech is a solid path to getting a higher rank.

When presenting evidence/analysis, a good rule of thumb is to explain relationships as articulately as you can. It is your job, not mine to ensure that your speech makes sense. If I can't understand the logic in your arguments, I won't spend time to try and figure them out. Hard evidence (statistics etc.) from reliable sources is always preferred to anecdotal evidence.

Good one-liners and rhetoric are always appreciated :)

Be as aggressive as you want. I will never judge your speaking style as being too "emotional" or sappy - I care far more about what you are saying than how you are saying it. Just remember that being aggressive does not entail insulting people straight up to their faces.

TL;DR - If you make it easy for me to give you the 1, I will give you the 1.

For Presiding Officers:

If you are fast, fair, efficient and don't make any major errors, you are guaranteed a top 5 rank. If you are exceptional, you are guaranteed a top 3 rank.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

I'm not super experienced with PuFo but have judged a few rounds before. Here is my take:

Make sure your arguments are clear and have strong links and properly cited evidence. I do value presentation heavily when evaluating speaks, but will also factor strength and creativity of arguments.

Park Vista 18-22

Participated in ethics bowl 3x

Speed is fine please just send a doc beforehand

Dmhobson0103@gmail.com

tech>>truth unless it’s outlandish

i like impact turns a lot

please don’t go for theory or weird voters because i probably won’t evaluate it how you want

i like cross a lot to establish speaker points and also it shows understanding of arguments

Parent judge, physician by profession. This will be my first time judging and I have no conflicts.

I look for cogent argument effective delivery and a clear thought process to reach conclusions.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Hello,

I am a parent judge with little experience. However, I have sat in multiple Congress sessions so I'm familiar with the flow of the round.

Judging criteria:
- Be professional, NO profanity or racial slurs
- Be respectful, don't interrupt or be rude
- Speak clearly and loudly
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have reputable research
- Do not ask questions to the same side during CX because it does not contribute or advance the debate and wastes a questioning block
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments

I am an experienced parent judge, and I have been judging Congress for 4 years on all levels - district, league, state, national (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, ASU, Glen, MLK) - and seen some of the best kids in the circuit.

General: I value clash, round/audience engagement, presentation and referencing prior speakers. Do not give constructive speeches late in the round. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Keep questioning respectful and short - please do not preface.

Authors/Sponsors: explain the bill, why it works/solvency, what it does, why it’s needed. Authors can rank highly too! If there are final appeals, use this opportunity to summarize the round effectively.

POs: Be organized and know procedure! If there are elections, you should not be running unless you truly know your rules. I try to rank PO’s if you run a fast, fair, and effective chamber - PO’s don’t have to be perfect, but try your best not to mess up precedence and recency as it slows down the round.

Best of luck!

My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

Hello, my name is Shalini. I am a homemaker. I am a daughter, sister, wife, and mother! Essentially I play many roles. I am an active PTA member. I hold an MBA degree and have worked as a Business Analyst before Pandemic hit.

I don't have prior debate judging experience. However, I enjoy well thought out and earnest opinions. I also look for strong arguments laced with compassion and humaneness. I believe in betterment and progress 'for a group' as opposed to 'for an individual.'

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

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

A little bit about me:

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

Decorum:

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

-Do not roll your eyes during others' speeches

-Do not purposely misgender other individuals

-No cross-questioning

Congressional Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Humor during speeches is fine, but keep it appropriate

Presiding Officer:

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

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

My email is mart4516@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to ask for feedback.

I've been judging for 7 years out of high school. I have judged TOC bid tournaments in CX/LD/PF.

I am also an experienced parli for Congress.

Most debaters will tell you I am strict but caring. I value debaters mental health and safety above all else but I also will move a round forward if debaters aren't on task.

Tournament Specific:

TOC Digital Series:I hurt my back this week.

Policy, LD, PF

TLDR:

I actually have zero preference on what you read. K, T, Theory, CP, DA's, I am fine with. I mix tech and truth. If the truth is common knowledge (9 out of 10 people on the street know) I will default to the truth, otherwise I will default to tech. I am fine with tricks in LD. You can run IVI's, RVI's really whatever and I will do my best to understand it.

Topicality:

Yes, I will evaluate this as an apriori. For the aff I have a reasonable threshold, if you gut check meet I will probably be fine with it, unless it is dropped. Aff's that reject the resolution I am fine with as well. But you do need to be able to debate the T debate.

K's:

I understand most economic based K's (Neolib, Cap). I have a good understanding of (Antiblackness, Orientalism, Feminism and Set Col). Some of the more "eccentric" K's, Baudrillard-esque, I will do my best to understand but you are much better off prefing a judge who has a background.

I am fine with an aff being K, try to explain why you are doing such though, which you should be doing anyways.

For my sanity, please do not assume I know your lit base. If you want to check if I do just shoot me an email and I will be transparent.

Theory:

Sure, run it. Disclosure, tech check, if it is in front of me I will have to evaluate, but please for the sake of me prove in-round abuse. Most of the time I default theory to being apriori or an IVI.

Misc:

I am very much a laid back judge. Spreading is fine, send me a speech doc, I will yell clear 3 times and then I just won't flow.

If it is a TOC tournament or a break round I am prone to do much less work for you in terms of impact weighing. If it is a novice round I will do much more work.

If you are winning or there is a clear experience difference (looking at you Open divisions) try to make it more educational for the other students.

If you are going to run 30 speaks you better have a reason. If it is to combat racial/gender equity issues or something similar I am prone. Otherwise you just wasted 1 minute running an argument that I will not evaluate.

Congress

Most of this is from the point that I am the parliamentarian, if I am scoring just read General

General:

Varsity/TOC: I expect you to be prepped on both sides of the bills. This is a debate activity, be prepared on both sides. If cycle is broken before the last speech I will take note, if you are able to jump in and switch sides you will rise in my ranks, I take note of sponsorship speeches, questions, switching sides, and other things. Even if you aren't selected for questioning I am aware of your participation in the round.

Nov/JV: I hope you had prepped both sides but if we have to break cycle it is not the worst thing. I am aware that this is new to you and I am here to support you much more than you think. Feel free to raise Point of Inquiry and ask questions.

PO's:

PO's if done well will rank in my breaks. I generally allow 1 mistake per hour. You will be evaluated on your ability to manage the chamber. I try not to intervene as much as I can, I am keeping track of your mistakes on my sheet.

If this is a novice/Middle School round, I will hand hold you through it if you need it. I want you to be successful. If there are no people I will help you by letting you view my Parli sheet. I dislike debaters who abuse POI when there is a new PO especially if they were forced/voluntold to PO.

Rule Violations:

I am fine with adjudicating evidence challenges, if the point is raised I usually default to contacting tab and pushing back the hard stop in order to accommodate the evidence challenge.

TFA:

While I have never debated on the TFA I am versed in terms of the rules specific to the circuit. If I make a mistake I will not hold it against a student to point of order me.

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Do not read out the points

All the best and good luck for the competition.

Congressional Debate-- I'll keep it simple. . .

1) I'm looking for an actual debate (not reading statements written weeks in advanced). The authorship speech and the first speech in opposition do not need to directly address what has already been said. The rest of the speeches do need to respond to what has been said. Please directly reference what you are addressing (e.g. Senator Smith said, ". . ." I respectfully disagree because. . .). Your argumentation should have a direct link to either voting "yes" or "no" on the bill or resolution. I'm looking for good warrants for your claim. Don't just read a quote from someone (even an expert) and assume I agree with the quote. Give evidence that your opinions are the correct ones (i.e. statistics (cite the actual study), arguments from history, detailed explanations, etc.). If you are citing a major news organization, tell me if you are citing an actual news article or an editorial (e.g. Don't just say, "The New York Times argued that. . . "). Your arguments should demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of the social sciences (especially economics). I tire of arguments that assume the legislative body has a magic wand that can do anything (e.g. raising minimum wage to $50 an hour while making inflation illegal). There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. Explain to me why your tradeoffs are better than the alternatives.

2) I'm looking for uniqueness. I'm a social studies teacher. If I learned something from your speech, you are more likely to get a higher score. If I'm thinking, "I knew all of this already," you are more likely to get a lower score. If you are piggybacking on an argument already made, I am expecting you to add to that point (not just repeat it).

3) I'm looking for a demonstration of good public speaking skills. The reason I favor congressional debate over policy debate is that this form of debate makes you learn useful communication skills. Watch members of Congress speak. Listen to real lawyers argue before the Supreme Court. They do not spread. They do not just read cards. I want to see the entire public speaking skills set. . . fluent delivery, excellent nonverbal communication, appeals to ethos, pathos, logos.

LD--

I would be considered a "traditional" LD judge.
You are debating values. I want to know the paramount value and the criteria used to assess the value. There needs to be clash on the value and criteria unless you mutually agree on the same value/criteria. Your arguments should flow from your value and criteria.

Things to avoid. . .
1) Kritics-- No Kritics in LD
2) Spreading-- You should speak no quicker than a moderately quick speaking rate
3) Ignoring the value/criteria debate-- you need to win this first before you do anything else
4) Presenting a plan-- I want to hear about the morality of this situation. I don't need to know how your going to actually have a policy to achieve that value. "Nuclear weapons are immoral" and "the United States should practice unilateral disarmament" are two totally different types of debate

Some brief background on me: My personal experience is mostly in congressional debate although I have competed multiple times in extemp. When it comes to my achievements, I was the first in my high school debate team history to qualify for NYSFL States as a freshman. I made it to TOC, NSDA Nationals, and NCFL Nationals. I have provided an outline to how I rank in congressional debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE JUDGING RUBRIC

I have crafted a comprehensive rubric delineating my judging paradigm for Congressional Debate. Recognizing that not all speeches or rounds are uniform, consider this paradigm a general guide for evaluating Congressional Debate rounds:

SESSION PARTICIPATION

• Speakers will face penalties for addressing fewer bills than the allotted time permits, typically two speeches per session.
• Recency-related issues leading to a speaker's inability to address bills will not result in penalties.

Note: Disapproval of pre-debate base-x bill agreements that are subsequently exploited, though not against formal NSDA rules, may lead to the deduction of Parliamentary Points.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 - AUTHORSHIP

• Focuses on introducing a specific problem, explaining bill impacts, and proposing effective solutions.
• Presents arguments requiring strong negation refutation for an impactful debate.

6 - AUTHORSHIP

• Effectively explains net benefits, discussing essential bill components without specific references.
• Provides arguments with some strong impacts.

4 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to net benefits generally, lacking specific details.
• Fails to provide strong impacts.

2 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to an unclear problem or weakly addresses solutions.
• Demonstrates minimal understanding of the bill's specifics.

REFUTATION, EXTENSION, CRYSTALLIZATION

• Refutation, extension, and crystallization criteria are evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the strength and clarity of the speaker's arguments, impacts, and overall contribution to the debate.

DELIVERY

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Demands attention through effective eye contact and vocal variation.
• Clear, compelling, and confidently delivered speech.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Speaks clearly with sufficient eye contact.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Makes poor eye contact but maintains a steady pace.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Occasionally looks at the pad, challenging to follow at times.

1 - INSUFFICIENT

• Constantly looks at the pad, speech flow is disrupted.

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC

• Evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the clarity, validity, and support of the speaker's claims.

ORGANIZATION

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Engaging intro, well-developed arguments, and a cleverly tied conclusion.
• Natural transitions enhancing cohesion.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Interesting intro, clear transitions between arguments.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Well-developed arguments, but transitions are boring or unclear.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Speech lacks cohesion, difficult to follow.

Note: Time deductions apply for speeches falling below 15 seconds or exceeding 10 seconds beyond the time limit.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS

• Responses rated from 4 to 0 based on clarity, confidence, and ability to stay on message.

PARLIAMENTARY POINTS

• Presiding Officers assessed based on Parliamentary Procedure, Recognition, Control, Communication, and Decorum.

ASSESSMENT

• Points deducted or added based on participation in the chamber, solving problems, raising motions, and asking questions.

This rubric aims to provide a nuanced evaluation of Congressional Debate performances, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment of competitors' legislative abilities.

Presiding Officers will be evaluated on a comparable scale, utilizing distinct criteria to enable their ranking alongside speakers in the room. The assessment encompasses the following key areas:

• PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: Examining the explanation, knowledge, and effective execution of parliamentary procedures.

• RECOGNITION: Assessing fairness and efficiency in recognizing speakers, adhering to speaker precedence and recency, and avoiding bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

• CONTROL: Evaluating the ability to lead in challenging situations, uphold decorum among delegates in the chamber, exercise sound judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency.

• COMMUNICATION: Reviewing the clarity and conciseness in explaining rulings.

• DECORUM: Maintaining a respectful presence in the room, with ratings on a scale of 0-4. Exceptionally poor decorum, similar to speakers, will result in a reduction of Parliamentary Points.

This comprehensive evaluation framework ensures that Presiding Officers can be ranked on par with speakers, considering their proficiency in parliamentary procedures, fair recognition practices, effective control of the chamber, clear communication, and respectful demeanor.

Fourth year parent judge who enjoys speech and debate. I work in PR/Communications and I’m an elected city councilman.

When judging, I’m looking for clear points, knowledge of subject matter, confidence, and friendly interchanges.

Background

Please add me to the email chain. My email isconradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not documents, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments, so I've summarized some thoughts below.

Speed- Pretty much fine with any level of speed. I'll yell clear if I can't understand.

DAs

fine with most DAs. If reading political DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic link evidence. I enjoy evidence comparison in debates on political DAs

K

K (Neg): I am a firm believer in topic-specific critical lit. The more specific your link cards, the better. If your only link is "you talk about the economy, therefore you're capitalist" or "you function through the state," don’t run it, or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K-Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency evidence that explains what the alt does. 3. A clear explanation of what the post in the in the alt world looks like.

K (Aff): I’m fine with critical affirmatives; however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer arguments that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise.

CPs

I’m fine with most counterplans, although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

I default to perms are test of competition, not advocacy

T/Theory

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps.

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, defaulting to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in-round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

PF

I take aula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize that a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing, I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author's last name and year in the back half of the letter. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

Please collapse

Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clearly if I can't understand what you are saying

Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedures

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note that I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback, I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

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

I have shrunk my paradigm after reading so many for prefs. If you want to see some of the longer sections, feel free to go here. Its nothing particularly interesting. I also have a rant section if you care about my hot takes on debate.

I have sections below for LD and Congress. If I am judging you in something else, click the link above.

Experience: I'm qualified to be your judge, no matter what style you are in. Enough said. If you don't believe me, just flip over to my judging record. I think its super cringy to read paradigms that list accomplishments from high school or whatever.

In round behaviors: I am early to my rounds, please be as well. I want to start on time to help tournaments run smoothly. For every minute we are late starting I start docking speaks from the opponent causing us to be behind. Also, please think about the space when choosing where to sit/stand. You don't want to be too far away or in a position that makes you difficult to understand (like facing away from me or sitting under a vent) or unable to charge your device if you need to. I tell my team all the time that they have been a human long enough to know how to care for one. Please care for your human. Go to the bathroom before round. Bring water or snacks in case your human gets hungry. Make sure your human is comfortable in the room. I will do the same.

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

I F**King HATE disclosure theory. Stop it. seriously, stop. It makes me want to stab myself in the eye every time I hear it. No one believes you when you try to claim you couldn't possibly have been prepared for what they run when you follow this up with 12 blocks and a disad.

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

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

Don't try to shake my hand. I really don't like it. I love the thought, but the germs and lack of handwashing I've seen at tournaments icks me out.

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

Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time. Post round me and I will go to tab to lower your speaks. I am fine with a quick question or two, but usually I am jonesing for more coffee so let me go back to the judges lounge!

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

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

Congress

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

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

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

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

Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session. I hate seeing chambers take tons of recesses and then complaining that they didn't all have a chance to speak.

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

Lincoln Douglas

Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments.In terms of speed I can handle pretty much everything I have seen on the circuit so far in my judging career, but if you aren't clear, I will raise my hand to let you know I can't understand you. I don't flow from the doc, but I will open it in case I I hear you say a word I didn't understand. I also will look at evidence on occasion, especially if I have reason to believe it might be miscut.

K's: I help my kids write them. I listen to them regularly, and I feel like I understand them. I am a decent judge for them, but if your K is built around your identity or is tied to your mental health, please strike me. I don't like being put in the "if you don't vote for me you are telling me my voice isn't meant to be heard" position. I almost always drop these cases, simply because I believe that is abusive to run and puts your opponent is an unwinnable position.

Theory: I enjoy legit theory debates, as long as it is debate theory- not things from outside the round (ESPECIALLY not disclosure) However I default to drop the arg, not drop the debater. I don't consider time skew or disclosure to be legitimate theory debate. If you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.

Topicality: I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments. For the living wage topic my kids ran a bee case (bees deserve a living wage!) and a birthday balloon case for the fossil fuels topic last year just to help you understand how I view Topicality. You have to be way out of left field for me to buy that your opponent is outside the expected realm of topicality.

Phil: It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I enjoy learning about new philosophies, but if you are being intentionally confusing about your philosophy to try to win the round, I will tank speaks. Win fairly or don't win. I hate watching rounds where one kid is clearly lost and trying to ask about the phil on CX and the other kid is being confusing on purpose to make sure their opponent can't respond.

Tricks: I have little experience with this- my students have just started getting into this. I am probably not your best judge for this type of argument, but I will try if you can explain it to me.

Misc. Stuff for any style debate:

-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28.4 for speaks.

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

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

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

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

I am currently a J.D. student. I was a four-year Congressional Debate competitor from 2014-2019. I also did Model UN.

I have different standards for each event that I judge. While I do take into account what is typically rewarded in these events competitively, some things stand out to me as a judge.

1) Effective communication. Do the words that you are saying make sense? Give me the BLUF: bottom line up front. I'm looking for clear, concise communication suitable for executive delivery - if you're not willing to say it to a CEO, you shouldn't be saying it in round.

2) Thorough and logical argumentation. Do your sentences connect? Does the evidence actually support what you are saying? Do I believe in the integrity of your evidence? Did you make your argument matter to me? Did you address weaknesses and counterarguments?

3) Engagement. This looks different from event to event, but I expect competitors to be good listeners and show an active, mindful presence in-round.

Congress-Specific Paradigm (does not apply for Policy, LD, PF, etc.)

I want to see good evidence and I want to see it explained. I want your argument to make sense. I want it to be based off more than a random line you pulled out of an article from The Guardian. Give me the links.

NEGATION SPEECHES MUST SHOW HARMS! If you're speaking on the negation, and you give a nonunique impact in your first contention, your second contention BETTER follow up with an active harm! If your main line of argumentation on the neg is "this won't work" with no harms, the affirmation ALWAYS wins, because they can say "well then it can't hurt to try"!

I like to see well-constructed, direct refutation. I want to hear "Representative X said Y, here's why it's wrong/ less important/ etc" not "X is wrong". Every speech after the 1st NEG should contain refutation. If you're weighing impacts, ref should also be substantiated, whether that's with new cards or with other representatives' arguments on your side.

I will rank up debaters that utilize good round strategy. If you sponsor the first bill and go within the first four speeches of the next bill, I will be very confused. (Stepping up to take one for the team when there are no speeches is an exception to that.) If you have recency, use it wisely! Not all Congress skills can be displayed effectively in every stage of the round. Sponsorships and extension speeches and crystals all happen at different stages for a reason.

Word choice and rhetoric are important. Don't shove stolen rhetoric at the end of a contention. It always sounds cheesy and bad. Rhetoric should be unique and make sense and feel natural. Honestly, I'd rather see no rhetoric than bad rhetoric.

Also, don't use debate words. I hate debate words. This is Congress. I don't want to hear burden, I don't want to hear impact, I don't want to hear link or link turn, etc. etc. unless those words are being used in the same context a normal, non-debater would use them ("The burden of the affirmation" = bad. "The burden on low income americans" = fine.)

My most important things for delivery are fluency, speed and engagement. I was fast. I know it's hard. But slow down. Be conversational. If I zone out, you're not a compelling orator.

Remember, at the end of the day, you're trying to pass (or fail) policy and protect people. Show me that. Show me emotion and passion and that you care. And good luck!

(any pronouns).

I judge on the uniqueness of points, how clear and understandable the speaker is, and whether they address the opposing sides' arguments. You must also finish within the allotted time and not go over; otherwise, I cannot award full points. Spreading is okay as long as it understandable. If you talk too fast and I cannot understand you I cannot give you the points you may deserve. A unique argument is something that hasn't been mentioned by previous speakers or reframes the argument in question in such a way that adds to the debate. I put little weight on if the resolution passes or fails. All of these will directly affect my rankings.

I am a parent of a competitor who has been involved in both speech and debate for the past 9 years and have been a judge for all types of events on multiple levels and circuits. I have seen it all, and neither appreciate excessive pandering to us judges nor losing sight of who your audience is, especially in your speeches. Shaking my hand after the round, while appreciated, will ultimately not impact my scoring, just as trying to make me laugh with a reference I don't understand will not help your chances (depending on the event). I always look to judge a round with utmost fairness and recognize the most deserving and prepared competitors for their hard work. I wish the best of luck to each of you and an enriching learning experience.

I am a parent judge and judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions.Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi guys :) A little bit about me, I've competed in Congress and Extemp all of high school on the local and national circuit, and have made it to outrounds in both. I have also dabbled in a couple of other events, doing LD on the local and national circuit and making it to outrounds, as well as competing in Parli on the local circuit. Besides these events, I am also familiar with most of the speech events (including Oratory, Advocacy, DI, HI, Duo, OPP, POI, NX and IX). I am in my second year of college and I currently coach high schoolers in Congress!

My judging experience:

• parli'd @ MLK 2024
• parli'd @ Stanford 2024
• parli'd @ Berkeley 2024

Here are my expectations as a judge:

Congress:

Some things to keep in mind for speeches:

1) This is both a debate and a speech event. That means that you should have good delivery AND good argumentation that adapts to the round.

2) In Congress, different speakers have different responsibilities depending on when you’re going in the round (e.g. sponsor sets up the round, early round speech is constructive-heavy, mid-round speech is refutation-heavy, last speaker gives a crystal)- do your job well and I’ll rank you accordingly.

3) When forming arguments, make sure to have a solid, easy-to-follow link chain! First, because good structure = clarity. Second, a good link chain details the logic behind your argument.

While we're on the topic of argumentation, here's a little tangent-

Tabula rasa? Tech over truth? Tough call (srsly). After some recent judging I've had to re-evaluate my policy on this. I'd like to think I maintain a good balance. Here's what that looks like- if I notice a hole in your argument but it's still (mostly) logically sound, I won't dock you for it if no one calls you out. But if I hear an incredibly goofy argument, it will hurt your ranks, even if no one calls you out on it. I want to be as objective as possible, but if you say something completely untrue or baseless I believe it would go against the educational aspect of debate to *not* let that influence my ranks.

4) Don't be repetitive! You can have a great argument, but if someone has already said it before you, you're not adding anything to the debate.

5) MOST IMPORTANT: You should be telling me why your argument is the most important, at the very least through weighing but preferably by giving me explicit reasoning why your argument sets you apart from other speakers in the round.

.

.

On Cross-Ex:

Be concise, and have a clear goal. You should either be pointing out flaws in your opponent’s argument or setting up your own argument for future refutations. Always remember to stay calm, and don’t resort to yelling.

On PO: Just do your job lol. If you do well, I’ll rank you highly. If you can’t handle the chamber effectively, it hurts your ranks. DO NOT under any circumstances be biased. I will catch on if you are prioritizing a friend or dropping a competitor.

On “base 2” (or whatever # of speeches y’all agree to):

Personally, I agree with the idea of everyone being promised a minimum number of speeches. However, I do not think there should be a hard cap on the maximum number of speeches allowed to be given.

E.g., in a round where there is base 2:

• don’t block out someone from giving a second speech

• But if no one is standing up and time permits, you can and should go for a third speech

Congress is about advocacy- so long as it isn’t at someone else’s detriment, you should take all opportunities to do so.

*Please note, that doesn’t mean I rank purely on the quantity of speeches- the quality must be there as well.

——

Lastly, please incorporate personality into your speeches! That’s what keeps the round interesting and makes the difference between good speakers and great speakers.

Hey,

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

For Congressional Debate:

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

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

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

For WS:

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

Good luck today- I hope everyone has fun!

UT CSB' 25

Email for questions: charan.s@utexas.edu

Hi, my name is Charan, I will be judging for Congress at Emory. Speak clearly and cite your evidence where applicable. I prioritize strong logical arguments over emotional ones.

Po's- y'all will always get a breaking rank(5-6). If you mess up a lot you're a 9 though.

GENERAL RULE FOR EVIDENCE:

Lies will get 9s. Try not to get caught.

Hello, competitors! Thank you for reading my paradigm before having me as your judge. Rather than give you an essay on my whole philosophy, here's a list of categories and bullet points for you to review. Feel free to ask me before the round begins if you have any questions or concerns.

Most Important:

- I am mildly hard-of-hearing. As such, you need to avoid spreading, double-breathing, blipping, etc. Feel free to shout at me! I won't take off speaker points for it. When in doubt, go slowly.

- I may not know your theorists. I have studied rhetoric, comm theory, and some philosophy, but you need to explain what your evidence is trying to say. Don't rely solely on your cards to do the explaining for you. (P.S., I would avoid running Zizek; I have never understood his arguments).

Experience:

- 1 year HS Lincoln-Douglas (a long time ago)

- 3 years college parli (NPDA)

- Majored in Communication Studies, teach English

Default Beliefs:

- The Aff should support a reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

- The Neg should refute the Aff via disadvantages and/or a single counterplan.

- Proximal impacts (those that will likely result from the plan) are more important than marginal-terminal impacts (where the plan/status quo poses a small or incremental risk of triggering an existential threat). I'm not saying you shouldn't link to nuke war if it's warranted, but I don't like voting for "even a tiny risk isn't worth it" arguments.

- Suffering and death ought to be minimized.

- Debate is a game. The ballot is awarded to the team or competitor who debates the best.

Things I Can Be Easily Persuaded to Believe:

- The ballot is a tool for change.

- Counterplans are dispositional (they can be kicked in favor of the status quo).

- Marginal-terminal impacts are more important than proximal impacts in this case (see above).

- There are problems with academic debate that need to be changed.

- The Aff shouldn't have to defend a bad resolution.

- The Aff must defend the best interpretation of the resolution.

Things I Probably Won't Believe:

- *Topicality only matters if there is an abuse of ground.

- *D-dev/suffering/slavery/racism/sexism are good.

- *Hold the ballot hostage/filibuster/other performances that break tournaments.

- *Consult aliens/gods.

- *Solipsism/nihilism/simulation cases.

- *Multiple counterplans/opportunity-cost DAs.

Last Notes:

- Be kind to each other.

- Give me a roadmap.

- I don't flow cross-ex.

- In the final rebuttals/speeches, tell me why you win.

- If you're going to run a K, make sure your framework provides a strong connection to the ballot.

Again, any other questions, ask before the round starts. Happy debating!

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigms for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

CX (ASU 2025)
I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school and then did a semester of speech in college. Beyond that I’ve coached for the last four years. I competed in policy for one season, but never went to a debate camp. Most of what I know from the event has come from judging and coaching kids who are far better than I ever was. It would be accurate to say that most of my experience as a competitor was in speech. That being said, I know how to flow, I know how to evaluate kritiks, theory, couterplans, dissads, etc, so run whatever you please. Your best course of action is to treat me like an experienced lay judge. I know what I’m doing, but I won’t be able to keep up with the highest levels of competition.

I also have some unpopular hot takes about policy debate you should know about:

· I believe debate is an activity built around oral communication, and I want to hear you speak. Because of this, I will likely not be reading your speech doc unless an issue arises. Ask yourself this, if you’re talking so fast someone needs to read your script to keep up, is it even a speech? Or is it just an indiscernible collection of words to satisfy a technicality. Speaking with a rapid pace is fine, but I ask that you maintain clear enunciation during signposting, taglines, and anything that isn’t strictly the body of evidence. You’re free to spread however you see fit, but I leave you with this wisdom: if you want me to write it down, slow down and give emphasis.

· I believe that debate is more than a game. I see debate as a place where some of the brightest young people in the world can discuss incredibly important issues. It’s for this reason that I’m not too fond of convoluted impacts scenarios. Not every policy arg needs to end in a nuclear war and not every kritik needs to end in some foolishly assumed global revolution. There are authentic and tangible issues that people suffer through every day that are neglected for the sake of having a bigger impact. It’s a silly arms race that scorns the real problems happening in the world. “To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom ─ it is indolence.”

· I believe that cards are not truth currency, and not all arguments are created equal. While you may have the ability to find impact evidence for almost any scenario imaginable, I expect you to critically evaluate who or what qualifies as a credible source. Overall, I’m tech over truth, but if your argument stinks and lacks basis in reality it won’t take much from your opponent to convince me. And please, do weighing. Applying X card to Y argument does not tell me why their argument is wrong, it just tells me you have a massive block file. Spell it out for me.

Speech (MS NSDA 2024)

To put my experience briefly I did two years of debate and one year of FX, placing at HS Utah state finals in 2019. I've been coaching and judging on and off ever since.

I have one simple rule: entertain me. If the speech is entertaining and memorable and well executed you will get my vote. Extempers, bring good sources, I will be counting. I expect a good structure and an introduction as well. Impromptu, if your speech feels canned at all it'll not get a good reaction from me, you're better than that. Oratory, the floor is yours for 10 minutes, go wild, but please don't abuse the grace period. Interps, I expect an overall compelling narrative not just overstimulation for 10 minutes.

PF (Jack Howe 2023)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

I am Ahmed Ullah, a serial entrepreneur and founder of multiples software companies.

I am looking followings in speakers:

1. Confidence
2. Contents with genuine impacts
3. Energetic speakers
4. Good rebuttals
5. Respect to other speakers

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math & Statistics + Data Science)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Events covered in this paradigm: Congress, LD/Policy, PF, Worlds, Extemp

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious preferences I have in this event.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is what that looks like:

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• Most importantly, I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy ig):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down a bit on anything that isn't on the doc

I aim to be a tab robot.

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE: I have not judged LD this season and especially not this topic so I'm very out of the loop with the contemporary meta of the topic. I know everyone says this but err on the side of over explaining.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, that's cool (although you probably will need to win FW)

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally, I feel like contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot to win for me. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative worlds > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my mind on this, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot more technical and extemporaneous.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks. I think rhetoric can also help with argument clarity.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity and adds no value to the round.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

Email for communication (feel free to say hello or ask about ballots) and email chains: edward.e.wilson.jr@gmail.com

Hello!

I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation and Pro Con Challenge

I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.

I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.

General Debate Stuff:

1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.

2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.

3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

LD Specific:

1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.

2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.

3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....

4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!

5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive evidence and points.

Congress Specific:

Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.

POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.

As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.

I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:

A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.

B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.

C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.

D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).

Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).

Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.

Legislators should always---

1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.

2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.

3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....

4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.

I am a parent judge and value speeches with clear, logical flow of ideas supported by evidence, delivered with good inflection, energy, and proper speed.

I look forward to hearing well-researched and constructive arguments during the early round, and speeches that bring new ideas to advance the debate and clash from previous speakers, as the round progresses.

Good synthesis in late round speeches is appreciated but should go beyond rehashing previous statements and be used to present own cohesive arguments.

I do not mind aggressive cross but please be respectful.

For PO, I value those who can demonstrate good knowledge of procedures and manage the chamber in a transparent and efficient manner.