I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for 5 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments.I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments.

At the end of the session, I have to rank you and that is difficult, so please talk to me when I am finished and not prior to that.

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

As a speech AND debate coach, when I listen to debaters give speeches, I am listening for communication skills AND effective analysis of argument. As debaters are presenting their SPEECHES to judges, debaters must keep in mind that the basic model of communication puts the onus on the debater to encode their ideas in a way that is best decoded by their audience...the judge (me). Essentially, a speech (whether for an interp event or a debate event) is a gift. It's not meant for the giver, it's meant for the recipient. Just because you'd like to talk fast, doesn't mean I'd like to listen fast. Please DO NOT SPREAD.

As the giver of the speech "gift," here's what you should know...

CONTENT - I am listening for a thoughtful and relevant introduction, a clear preview of the roadmap, clear signposts/transitions, sources to be clearly cited, and jargon to be explained. Clash / questioning / cross should be respectful and focus on the superiority of argument and evidence.

PRESENTATION - I am listening for a speech delivered at a rate for the average human who may or may not be familiar with your resolution to decode. You needn't sound like Garrison Keillor, but if you sound like an auctioneer, your scores will be low. A speech is a gift. I do expect you to enunciate clearly, effectively utilizing pausing, emphasis, vocal variety, and varied rate. Pronunciation of common words and proper nouns is important--especially in your constructive speech. When possible, you should make regular eye contact with me (not exclusively read from your source). Any gestures, facial expressions, and movement should be purposeful and professional.

I've been an educator for 28 years (16 in higher ed and 12 in k-12). I was a high school forensic competitor, and I understand the importance of judging competition. I have taught speech since 1995 and became a Speech and Debate coach in 2017.

Best of luck, and I look forward to hearing you.

Former PF debater | avinash.byakod9999@gmail.com | he/him

PF Paradigm

LAY/FLOW: (Varsity/JV) Flay judge leaning on flow. Rhetoric might not win the round, but it has subconscious value and can improve speaks. Common jargon like extend, drop, cross-app, warrant, link, NU, NT is cool. If I ask for clarification on advanced jargon, it won't impact speaks. (Novice) Convince me with evidence and numbers to win the round. Tech will have very little consideration in novice unless a side brings up tech ideas.

SPEECH DOCS: If both teams are comfortable with sending judges constructive docs, do so at my email above. I will not be verifying evidence, just following along as you speak and double-checking what was stated in case for later speeches.

TECH/TRUTH: Truth makes an argument, tech extends an argument. Poorly explained arguments, rebuttals, or FTs that rely too heavily on tech will not be valued highly. 1 good argument > 50 bad rebuttals. 1 good rebuttal > 50 bad frontlines.

OFFTIME ROADMAPS: Highly encouraged. Shouldn't be more than 10-15 seconds.

EXTENSION/DROPS: I will try to keep track of this, but call out your extensions and opponent drops often including what speech it was extended/dropped from (signpost 24/7). This includes extending impacts, not just links. Reading new offense (other than turns) in rebuttal/summary isn't extended from case unless you simply expand on something you stated in case. If a turn is read, I expect it to be extended. Fully dropped args will not be considered.

CROSSFIRE: I don't mind who gets the first question when as long as it's agreed upon. If no standard is set, pro-con-pro will be the order. Any notes I write are for speaker points. Unflowed, but if you bring up answers/questions from cross, it will be considered as part of the speech. Keep questions/answers to 30 seconds max and don't talk in circles to waste time. Let each other speak. Do not yell over each other.

KRITIKS/THEORY/PROG: I don't like prog in PF rounds unless it's egregious (evidence fraud, malicious lying, verbal abuse, etc), but will consider if it is strong. Disclosure theory is built on the idea that debaters who can't adapt to new ideas or surprises are better than those who can. Y'all have prep time and crossfires, figure out their argument instead of complaining you didn't know it beforehand.

SPEED: I am not super comfortable with extreme (policy level) speed. I will write what I can and remember what I can, but if you speak too fast, I may lose a critical part of your speech or miss an extension. If you insist on having 800+ words, please provide a speech/outline doc. Provide this doc to competitors as well if you want to spread to 900+ words.

EVIDENCE: If there is an email chain, link me in at avinash.byakod9999@gmail.com. If a piece of evidence becomes contested, I may ask to verify it.

PREP/SPEECH TIME: You and I will keep track, but my time is official. Running a few seconds over speech is okay and will be flowed, but don't abuse this or I may change my mind.

WEIGHING: Final impacts will be weighed based on the accepted framework. Weigh for me and I'm more likely to believe you. I love pre-reqs, but I need to believe them. Don't just state a pre-req, dive into how it is required and WHY. I will weigh on any framework. I've seen protection from alien threats and funniest arg wins be accepted frameworks, and I'm ready to judge on them.

SPEAKER POINTS: Unrelated to the outcome of the round. Yelling at opponents, gish gallop, excessive speed/spreading, and mumbling will lose points. Speak clearly and respectfully at all times. During opponent rounds, including FF, don't make disrespectful hand gestures unless it's funny. Make me laugh and get 31 speaks. Spin your pen for +5 speaks for skill points and -5 speaks for overconfidence.

Disclosure

Willing to disclose results, speaks, and rfd if asked. If you do not want disclosure or do not want any specific part of disclosure, feel free to leave at any point or tell me to stop. Ask questions or clarification at any point, but do not debate me and try to change my decision.

LD/Policy Paradigm

Limited experience with mocks. Read PF paradigm for evidence, prep time, speaker points, and off-time roadmaps. Prog debate is accepted, but I will still need to be convinced of its merits and its ability to outweigh the resolution. Disclosure thoughts remain the same, however. I understand speed is faster here, so speech docs are encouraged and speaker points will not be cut unless it's unintelligible. I am lay, but will try to keep the best notes I can based on my understanding of a round. Careful weighing and explanations are critical as I have little experience doing it myself.

Congress Paradigm

Very light congress experience, treat me as lay. I'll still try to keep notes ofc.
I know congress has a lot of rhetoric and strong speech skills are critical, but please have good argumentation (and refutation!) if you want a high rank. Please interact with other congresspeople's speeches when possible and be an active debater, not just a speaker.

Remember that if Mike Johnson, a man who doesn't believe in dinosaurs, can rank 1st in IRL congress, anyone can in debate congress.

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

If you read this whole paradigm please tell me if there are any issues or if you want me to expand on anything

About me:

Hi! I'm a very experienced parliamentarian.

My rankings as a parliamentarian tend to be pretty spot-on for the top three to five students in my prelim chambers before varying a little bit going down from there, as they should.

Try not to overthink where I rank you. I would say to focus on the feedback; I've been a part of the Congressional Debate community as a competitor, judge, and coach for over a decade now, so I certainly have some thoughts on how I think you can improve.

Prelims:

We are all aware that teammates share prep, students are using AI, and some unscrupulous coaches prep their students out. That is why I have found that I actually judge more heavily off of delivery in prelims. I'm always listening to your arguments and taking note of strong and weak ones, but I'm not exactly flowing the round like it's PF; I'm just trying to give each of you a paragraph of feedback for each speech. Here is a non-exhaustive list of things I will try to evaluate over the course of nine or so hours as your parliamentarian:

Content:

☐ Good arguments & avoid rehash

☐ Full (with the date) citations & high-quality sources

☐ Signposting your arguments/clear taglines

☐ Ability to refute

☐ Ability to crystalize

☐ Strong analysis

☐ Strong questioning

☐ Strong introductions

☐ Strong conclusions (that relate to your intro and last for longer than 5 seconds)

☐ Rhetoric & humor

☐ Appeals to pathos

Delivery:

☐ Effective hand gestures

☐ Eye contact (especially during your introduction)

☐ Volume/presence

☐ Passion, not aggression

☐ Vocal variation (tone & volume & speed)

☐ Fluency of speech

☐ Walking on points

☐ Conversational pace

☐ Ends on time/time management (this is a BIG pet peeve of mine; try to end at 3:00 please)

Style:

☐ Leadership/influence in the chamber

☐ In-round strategy (overcoming bad pre-set recency, getting a third speech in without losing the respect of your peers)

☐ Decorum

☐ Use of a legal pad or non-technological equivalent (this is part of the role-play)

☐ Maintaining the role-play (if you are a senator, that means you're pretending to be at least 30 years old)

Elimination rounds:

I'll be honest, I only occasionally judge elimination rounds because I am usually conflicted out of all of them except for at the largest tournaments (think Harvard or NSDA House quarters). However, I do watch them all the time as a spectator.

What I am really looking for in semis (or quarters) are students who have not only mastered the fundamentals, but also find a way to stand out in a room where everyone is pretty decent at speaking.

Specifically, the key things I am really looking for when I judge an elimination round are:

☐ Outstanding intros & conclusions

☐ Clear signposting & structure

☐ Authentic rhetoric & pathos

☐ Advanced argumentation & synthesis

☐ Conversational pace & stellar eye contact

☐ Strong time management throughout a speech (3:00 is the target; if both of your speeches are 3:10, that looks comparatively weak)

A note on presiding:

If you're going to be a presiding officer while competing in Congressional Debate, be a great one. Above all, time your fellow competitors accurately. If you mistime or misgavel your colleagues, I consider that to be a critical failure. Pay attention to your timer and if you make a mistake, be honest about it and come clean. I also don't like it when POs lie about speech times (saying a speech that is 3:13 is 3:10).

POs should demonstrate authority and leadership through problem-solving, managing the chamber when conflict and confusion arises.

I keep a close eye to see if a PO appears to have read the tournament-specific rules.

I highly value word economy. The more you speak as a PO, the more time you are wasting.

Dockets and agendas are not the same thing. The words are not interchangeable.

If no one wants to preside and you are genuinely taking one for the team, I will obviously recognize that and try to help you out if I'm your parli.

Finally:

Remember why we are all here: Speech and Debate is an educational activity. This is about you becoming the best, most capable version of yourself (and using those talents to make the world a better place). Five years from now, the confidence, talent, and knowledge you cultivate through this activity will be useful to you, every single day. The plaques and trophies will either still be on display at your old school or sitting in a box at home somewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

Hi! I debated Congress in high school for four years and have judged a couple times. I am super excited to judge every round! I understand that it can be nerve-racking, but I am here to support you and just offer ways to become a better debater in my ballots/outline what you can work on. Try to be active in rounds and have fun! <3

For speeches:

• Definitely a fan of structured speeches, I would like to visualize/know where you are in your speech (for instance, CWDAI), moving between points is helpful!
• DEBATE THE BILL NOT THE PROBLEM.
• PLEASE HAVE A WARRANT. You should be able to explain logically why your point is true, then back it up by necessary data, I do not like when the premise of a point is made and it is not furthered logically and is assumed that the data will make up for it.
• Have an analysis to your data. After stating your data, explain how it relates to your claim/warrant and fit it into the scope of the debate.
• Impacts are very important! Please weigh both sides of the debate and why your viewpoints are better.
• For every speech after the authorship/sponsorship, you should have refutation (please be respectful while refuting! As in do not demean them during it :( please).
• For authorship speeches, it is very helpful to explain the issue well (why did you make this bill?)
• For crystallized speeches, summarize the debate well and have ample refutations!

For POs:

• I rank you if you maintain a good round!
• Please explain your procedures prior to presiding!
• Have good knowledge of the motions that people may provide.
• Keep recency, maintain a good flow of the chamber.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

Hi, I have competed in Student Congress all 4 years of High School. I have experience competing in both the local and the national circuit. I am someone who enjoys listening to refutation and I like confrontation in direct cross-examination. I also expect after the first round of Aff-Neg I hear some refutation, I value arguments over rhetoric. I do not like rehash unless there is some continuation or update of the argument, and towards the end of the round, I would like to hear a half-ref or a crystal. I am someone who also ranks the PO for doing a good job. I view the round as through the macro-sense meaning when I rank someone it is dependent on their wholistic impact on the round on the confluence of their speaking, questioning, and being a leader. I rank people equally whether they give an early-round speech or a late-round speech so I do not give free ranks depending on how you speak on the round. Also, I am comfortable with reading and understanding in-round Amendment however if the Amendment is found dilatory I frown upon that, as the prerogative is on the author of the Amendment to make sure that it is relevant and is not contradictory to the legislation.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Intros:

Intros that are directly about the topic always beat canned intros. Congress can get boring and very rarely will I not reward someone for being creative or otherwise having an intro that is narratively captivating.

Congress Philosophy:

Congressional debate is sometimes called "Student congress" is a performative art. It is the only event that is truly Speech AND Debate. Judges are instructed to rank based upon who was the best "legislator". This is precise nomenclature, It is a holistic term that includes both performative rhetoric as well as flow-heavy argumentation. A good rule of thumb is If a politician wouldn't say it neither should you. However, this should not stop you from giving dynamic off-the-cuff responses. I have great respect for debaters who turn the event into a spectacle I should be engaged and entertained while watching you. The most important thing to ask yourself is "Will my judge remember me tomorrow?"

Argumentation:

If you run National Debt adjacent arguments in front of me expect to receive a 9. If I'm the parli expect to DFL, especially in an Outround. I will not flow the speech.

All speeches after the first cycle should refute other speakers.

In 70-85% of cases running a counterplan as someone on the neg is an inadvisable strategic decision and a terribly inexpedient usage of speaking time.

Authors,Sponsors, First affirmatives: My generic advice is use a PSI (Problem,Solution,Impact) format but even if your using CWDI or some other alternative structure, you need to do three things that are the same irrespective of the structructure of the speech. Frame the problem. Explain how your advocacy solves mechanically by using the legislation and its sections, and then explain the ultimate impact of your advocacy do those three things well and you will rank well.

Counter-intuitive arguments are a massive plus, especially when they manage to hijack the round. Please do not shy away from legislation-based argumentation or constitution/Supreme Court response arguments. "Let the courts decide that/ Neither you nor I are lawyers" is NOT valid refutation of these arguments. But if you are going to make a constitution-adjacent argument do not argue some version of "The bill is unconstitutional, we should fail because constitution = good ."

Arguments need warenting to be valid. Frankly this should go without saying but I see way too many people ludicrous assertions and then fail to articulate how exactly the argument comes to that assertion or even its end point impact wise. As a follow up; Regarding structure, I'm open to experimentation. Don't feel bound by CWDI or any other traditional methods of structuring arguments. Just make it clear enough that I can understand your tags and subsequent link-chain. Trust me to follow if its intelligible.

Late Round:In the last few cycles of debate but especially if you're attempting to crystalize, you should be weighing the arguments of the round and proving to me why your side wins the debate it is not enough to just give a line by line broadside of the other side and call it a crystal. I need you to convince me. In regards to this, make the case to me that your side gives the best responses to the "Voting Issues" of the round.

Presiding officers:

POs start at a "3" on my ballot and will lose ranks from errors. They can also be supplanted by phenomenal legislators. The PO starts at a "3" ("4" if I'm your parli) because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round. In an ideal world this would mean that PO should start as a "1" seeing as a round is impossible without the PO however, I cannot justify giving the PO a student who by definition does not engage in the debate the best rank in the round.

The more people who run for PO, the faster the winning PO will lose ranks from mistakes because you've claimed that you're better than every other person who wanted it.I appreciate PO commentary but only to an extent.

IMHO, 3 types of POs exist fast POs charismatic POs, and bad POs. you should aim to be one or both of the first two, please do not make me feel that you are asleep at the switch.

Follow parliamentary procedure, but don't get anal-retentive over it(this applies to everyone, not just PO's). While a motion to open the floor for debate is technically dilatory don't point of order a presiding officer over accepting it. Some local circuits are very lax about that kind of thing. however, please, please never say "point of personal privilege to go use the potty"

 I competed in multiple speech and debate events for 4 years at West Broward High. Although I never competed in PF, I am familiar with basic argumentation, and I prefer debaters to carefully explain all of their arguments throughout the debate. Don’t mention an argument in summary or final focus if you didn’t emphasize it in prior speeches. Logic matters, so if you can refute arguments with it, I will tend to favor those extrapolations. If you have any questions email me. Good luck!

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Dear Contestants,

I expect to see and hear a clear, succinct presentation of your work. I have a teaching background in healthcare and listen and judge clinical presentations. I appreciate positive, non-confrontational attitude from participants. Please try to avoid talking over each other.

Thanks, and good luck.

Hey, I'm Mike Kaiser! I competed in Congress on the national circuit for 4 years and graduated in May of 2023; I'm now an undergraduate college student studying finance at the University of Florida. My biggest takeaway from this activity was that there are an infinite amount of ways that to communicate a message effectively, but the best way will always be the one that highlights your individuality, so be original!

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy (and TLDR): I reward speakers that explain why their arguments are true as well as prove that they are true. This means a good argument includes plenty of warranting behind it, solid evidence to prove it, and proper analysis to link it together. I believe that every speaker has a unique role depending on how early or late the round is and I will rank the speakers that do the best job of fulfilling their roles (i.e. don't give a constructive as the last speech of the round). Finally, make sure that your speaking is engaging and passionate. In order to convince me that I should care about what you're saying, you have to sound like you care about what you're saying. Think of your round as an opportunity for me to get to know you, throw in a little personality.

Originality:As the great Zachary Wu once said, Congress is a game of raw persuasion. This just means that you don't have to abide by the conventions of Congress in order to be good, you just have to do the best job of convincing me why your argument is the most important in the round. I don't want you to give copy-paste speeches that you've given before nor extensively rehearsed speeches that sound like ChatGPT. In fact, I would rather you write a speech from scratch in-round if it means you will adapt to the round, include refutation, and explain your advocacy properly. I rank speeches that are good in the context of the round, not just good in isolation.

Humor: I love humor and will reward it if done properly. Humor in Congress is at its best when the jokes are professional and the role of Congressperson is maintained. That being said, if you make me laugh with a "less-than-professional" joke I will still reward you because I have a sense of humor.

Presiding Officers:If you want my 1, you better not make any mistakes. I rank presiding officers that are assertive, but not rude, and effectively manage the round. The best presiding officers are not yappers, they are quick and concise. Making a couple of mistakes will probably still land you in my ranks, depending on how you handle them.

Flipping:I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

Weighing: Do it, please. I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

Refutation: Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Most importantly, have fun, be yourself, and don't be rude to anyone. And be confident.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at michel.s.kaiser@gmail.com anytime.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I competed in speech and debate for four years both in Congressional and LD debate. I think they equally contributed to what I like to see in a debate round: great speaking ability and plenty of direct clash in argumentation. I believe my job as the judge isn't to evaluate the quality of each individual argument (since that can allow my own biases to affect the debate), but rather the quality of the clash, and engagement with the standing arguments of the debate. So what I'm getting at here is if your opponent makes a bad argument, even if I know it, and you know it, the burden is always on you to point it out and explain why it's a bad argument as briefly (or not-so-briefly) as that requires.

I'll always be evaluating the round based on the clash of ideas because that's what makes it a debate, rather than just serial back-to-back speeches. The debate aspect is of course more important to me in so far as you can win a round with great debate skills and poor speaking skills more easily than you could win with no debate skills and great speaking skills. However, keep in mind that (especially at high-level tournaments) most people will have both so I don't advise neglecting either.

For LD specifically, I'm fine with speed but you should flash me your case if you're going at a speed that will make it likely for me to miss an argument. Congress not so much, I feel the role-playing aspect boxes you in a little more, so high-speed arguments will likely not score well.

For Congress specifically, (at least with me) you're not throwing away a rank by POing. As a career PO, I will always consider POs that performed at a high level, kept the session running smoothly, and did not mess up recency or precedence.

I like framework in both events. In both events, they're not 100% necessary but I like having an organized way to evaluate the round, so if one does come up make sure you address it well, and weigh why/how it should be evaluated. Weighing and impacting is EVERYTHING. Nothing seals a debate more than "more bad stuff happens if you vote for my opponent(s), more good stuff happens if you vote for me". Feel free to ask me any specific questions on how I evaluate rounds but I just enjoy good argumentation, so give me a good exchange of ideas without being excessively rude to your opponent and you'll be alright.

My name is Jasmine Morales and I'm a first-year at the University of Florida. I primarily competed on the circuit for 4 years throughout high school in Congressional Debate. I have judged lots of speech, congress, LD, and PF. My main judging focus is placed onto voice/tone, passion (how much do you care about the issue you are talking abt?), argumentation (strong arguments always stand out in a hard-to-judge round), and refutation! Refutation is especially something that I find essential in every single round and strong, supported refutation will always go far to me as a judge. Clash is imperative if you are trying to win my vote no matter which event you are in (with the exception of early round Congress speakers). 

Please maintain professionalism and proper decorum at all times, feel free to speak as quickly or slowly as you are comfortable with, and make sure you state your evidence explicitly - don't make me work for it. It's your job as a speaker and debater to argue your stance using words.

I will not read anything sent to me. I will only consider what is presented verbally in the round.

I consider cross and questioning heavily. If you ask just clarifying questions, that’s weak.

As an LD judge, I prefer a traditional argument to a K. You have been given a resolution and a stance to argue, and it is your job to debate within the definitions and assumptions of that resolution and stance. Debating around the resolution is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, inappropriate in my opinion.

As a PF judge, like LD, I also prefer traditional argument, but especially within PF, I need your impacts linked properly. Stating evidence is not enough. Tell me why that evidence matters and what it affects.

In Congress, I appreciate the strategic use of speech timing. As the legislation goes on, it becomes more and more important to have novel arguments and evidence so if you don’t have anything, be sure to use clash to refute the other side.

I look for speakers to be able to communicate effectively and engage the audience when speaking. Ie: make eye contact, project your voice, reference your sources to show your preparedness. In cases of Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools I would like to see non-repetitive and unique refutation to your opponents. Respect the time limit. Be respectful of your opponent— attack the topic, NOT the opponent. Congratulations for making it into FFL Varsity States, I wish you all the best of luck!

When judging any style of debate or speech I need the competitors to have strong annunciation and a good pace. If you are speeding through your content I cannot properly judge the round.

In terms of LD, make sure you are properly defining your Value and Value Criterion, you are keeping your framework up throughout the debate, and you are directly refuting your opponent's arguments. 

Although I judge heavily on speaking style, at the end of the day whoever wins on the flow wins on the ballot. 

I am a novice congress judge. However, I have a lot of passive knowledge. My ideal debater speaks freely and with composure, shows respect to their competitors in speeches and during questions, and makes clear and original points. I appreciate emotion, but not at the expense of common sense, and a sense of humor, but not at the expense of others.

If I am judging your round this is my criteria:

- This is congressional debate so I expect to here actual debate.

- I am looking for a good balance of flow and debate.

- Being able to adapt to the round is essential.

- After the first cycle I expect to hear refutation.

- If you start rehashing you will lose points.

- If the debate is one-sided, after 3 speeches on the same side I expect to hear a speaker on the opposite side speak. I do not want to sit there and listen to a one-sided debate.

Otherwise, good luck! Can't wait to hear your speech!

Hi! My name is Deacon Prideaux and I am a current undergraduate student at the University of Florida. In high school, while I never participated in debate events, I did judge a handful of elementary, middle, and high school PF and Congress. I've always really enjoyed judging these events and think that forensics is incredibly important in today's day and age.

For both events, your job is to convince me why your argument is the strongest and why I should vote for you. In regards to Public Forum, I'm looking for strong argumentation with recent and evidence to support it, powerful, vibrant clash, and most importantly... confidence. Confidence will help show me that you feel as if you know what you are talking about and care about the topic. I want to be able to noticeably see that you are confident in your cases - whether or not you get that Pro or Con case that you thought would be stronger in round. Remember to have fun as well! Your round is your time to get your opinion out there and shine. 

My primary debate experience is in IPDA, a limited-prep, fast-paced debate format, for 4 years. However, I have watched debates of various events, even competing in Model UN, and generally value these things in a round:

1. Organization - your speech must be easy to follow, with clear direction, signposting, and roadmaps, if possible.
2. Clarity - state your positions first and clearly, then justify them with evidence and argumentation. If I don't know what you're arguing, your speeches are hard to follow.
3. Passion - debate should be interesting. If you're passionate and energized, that means that you truly believe what you're saying. This doesn't mean you have to scream, but give it your all.
4. Respectfulness - debate doesn't have to be dirty. Be respectful and kind to your fellow debaters, but also don't be afraid to say their points are incorrect or lacking evidence or reasoning. This also means not to spread - quality over quantity!

Have fun, and give it your all!

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extempt, and Duo/ longtime judge (mainly PF)

Things to consider at the start of the round:

1. Make sure to clearly state your contentions
2. Speaking fast is okay but do not spread
3. Remember I am flowing please make it easy to follow along throughout the round
4. Make sure your flow is ready before the round
5. Delivery matters!!

Things to consider during the round:

1. Keep up with your own prep time
2. Make sure you utilize your time wisely. Make sure you use all of your time and are refuting as well as rebuilding your case.
3. Please do not spend multiple speeches arguing over one source.
4. Make sure you are extending arguments.
5. My ballot will go to the team that does the best weighing and impacting in the round. You have to be clear as to why you are winning the round. If you do not call something out or respond, I cannot make the argument for you. Remember to actually debate the resolution don't get lost in the round.
6. Be mindful of what you say in the round. The words you use and the arguments you make have implications. Please consider that throughout the round.
7. Do not wait to FF to say that the other team dropped all of your contentions.
8. Do not ask for a source in question for something that is common knowledge. I do count logical arguments and responses.

If doing an email chain please add me - gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

If you have any other questions feel free to ask!

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

A debate is a search for the truth. That's why, along with voting, debating is at the heart of America's democratic process.

So please call out people who just make things up.

Also important:

* Intros that are directly about the topic always beat generic intros that could apply to any topic.

* Quotations always beat paraphrase.

* Fully-cited evidence I can hunt down always beats "The New York Times tells us that . . ." (Remember: NSDA-minimum is name or publication and year. That's an absurdly low standard that makes zero sense for the new-resolution-every-hour world of Congress. Many Congress debaters still fail to meet it.) The challenge posed by AI will make attention to sources even more important.

* An authorship without an expert solvency advocate--a credentialed source who advocates what's in Section 1 of the bill or the Resolved clause--is cursed. An authorship which has an expert solvency advocate is blessed. I hold cursed bills against their authors/sponsors and reward blessed authors/sponsors. It's considered rude to point out that the only people in the whole world who think the bill is a good idea happen to be the handful of AFF speakers, but that argument is an automatic winner for NEG. A great nation doesn't make policy based on a random hunch. If you can't quote an expert who says "We should spend X billion on Y program" (for instance) then your bill is cursed. I won't, of course, hold cursed first-AFFs against speakers, because someone has to kick off. TL;DR: Find your Section 1 in your research. Don't just wing it.

* Giving the right kind of speech (constructive, rebuttal, summative/"crystallization") at the right time always beats giving the kind of speech you're best at without thinking about what the debate needs. I think I can tell an "oops, thought I'd PO" crystal from one that groups and clinches the best arguments in the round.

* Rehash is a venial, not a mortal, sin. And if you're a novice, always give the speech. That said, giving a third- or fourth-in-a-row is an admission of under-preparation.

* The assumption that everyone is going to give two speeches in a round seems fair, but it has pernicious effects. It discourages folks from speaking early. That in turn results in several "please, someone give a speech" moments in the round. It also discourages people from prepping the full agenda. I have mixed feelings about people ruthlessly taking speeches whenever they can. It's not friendly, but neither is stonewalling until some novice buckles and agrees to kick off the debate, and it's hard to blame someone who grabs a speech opportunity that's just sitting there.

* POs start at 1 on my ballot and lose ranks from errors. They can also be displaced by truly excellent speakers. The PO starts at 1 because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round. Can't have a round without the PO. The more people there are who run for PO, the faster the winning PO loses ranks from errors, because you're claiming you're better than everyone else who wanted it.

* Congress is speech *and* debate, so be sure you're listening and responding (debate) and keeping me focused on what you're saying (speech). Congress is getting too fast and burdened with jargon. The ideal Congress speaker is perfectly intelligible to someone who wandered into the room. A conversational pace is a supreme sign of confidence, and if your arguments are also the ones the round needs, you get the one.

* Respect the role-play, which is the only thing that has kept Congress from joining the long list of last decade's big new debate event that will solve everything but which is now moribund because the college kids got hold of it.

* My feedback more often plays the doubting game than the believing game. For instance, I often suggest arguments I think would be better. I do this to help debaters, which helps Congress, which is something I love. Anyone who spends a perfectly good weekend trying to honestly hash out trade policy etc. is a hero, and I encourage everyone to be their best, which is why my feedback is more full of "grows" than "glows." But you're glowing just by playing.

I'm a former high school Congressional Debate competitor.

Keep in mind that your goal in a speech should be persuasiveness. An insightful and cohesive argument alongside an engaging delivery is key.

Be cognizant of arguments that have already been extensively developed to avoid rehash. Ask thoughtful questions that make the questioning period worth its time.

As a Presiding Officer: your job is to make the playing field even and organized. Be confident in shutting down anyone that exploits their time or otherwise. Allow every competitor a fair shot at the ongoing debate. Use discretion when taking particular actions in the interest of time

I am a coach at The Potomac School. Experience in coaching and competing in speech and debate at the High School and College levels - 12 years.

Basic round guidelines:

-General courtesy towards other debaters/speakers. Good sportsmanship before, during, and after rounds.

-Be careful about making large scale claims about minority/marginalized groups, arguments need to be more general (i.e. people in x situation generally do y. NOT this group does y in x situation.). In my mind this is the easiest way to create a friendly and educational environment that doesn't exclude people or make them uncomfortable.

Congress:

Delivery - At a minimum I must be able to hear and understand the words you are saying. I am not a fan of visual aids, I find they usually waste time and distract from the speech's purpose.

Evidence usage - Evidence should inform and bolster your argument. Looking for a good balance of evidence variety and volume.

Analysis - I need to know the context of the evidence that is being provided and see how it connects to your argument. I will not connect the dots myself.

Decorum - Maintain good sportsmanship and a professional atmosphere.

Voting - If there is an outstanding decorum issue, this will be my primary voting point and I will note it in your ballot. Other than that, I will always lean towards analysis.

Debate Rounds:

-Heavier on content than delivery, but delivery must be understandable, (i.e. slow enough to understand, If you do spread, I'll do my best to flow and follow the speech but if it's too fast, the arguments get dropped) have a sense of clarity, and some composure.

-Round clash is important - including directly answering questions from opponents.

-Warranting and impacting makes up a large part of my ballot.

Speech:

-Looking to see the full range of your speaking capabilities.

-Please make sure I can hear you in rounds, if I cannot hear you, I cannot rank you properly.

-Do NOT use your phones during rounds. Please show respect to your fellow speakers.

You can be bad but don't be boring

Congress is a debate event but good presentation goes a long way

make eye contact with the room try to avoid reading from your pad as much as possible

if your speech is just stock arguments you better speak early

i appreciate good refutations and crystallizations

Student Congress

Presentation:

• Fluency: coherent and fluid speech, and an advanced vocabulary
• Deliberate and effective intonation and inflection
• Respectful tone (esp. during questioning)
• Ensure that speech coherence and steady pace is maintained during questioning; don't rush

Argumentation:

• First aff and first neg should provide a coherent and intelligent encapsulation of the main points of contention that will arise during the debate; your claims should be carefully selected; a powerful sponsorship or first neg will impress me.
• Immediate refutation after first aff and first neg; be faithful when summarizing your opponents' arguments; incisive refutation will lead to a more nuanced (and more original) argument.
• Refutation is key; it is the best canvas to display originality; carefully select which arguments merit refutation; two refutations on the same argument can be wildly distinct in both content and quality
• Having a nuanced and original argument is great, but you must be able to convey to me why those two descriptors apply to your argument; be a salesperson, don't make me do the work in understanding why your argument is crucial to the debate.
• If you're among the last in the cycle, an intelligent crystal speech will impress me. Similar to the first aff and first neg, you must be deliberate and intelligent when selecting which arguments merit mentioning and which do not. Don't forget to refute.

Presiding:

• Respectful tone
• Coherent Speech
• Able to efficiently resolve procedural conflicts
• I expect complete knowledge on all procedural rules
• The session should flow seamlessly, little to no interruptions

Prelim rounds, I pretty much place equal emphasis on both presentation and argumentation (maybe more on argumentation).

Elim rounds, argumentation reigns supreme; I expect impeccable presentation.

Important Note:

The ultimate goals of Student Congress is 1) to learn and 2) to have fun. Emulate those around you who are older and/or better than you because that's how you will personally advance. I earnestly believe that emulation is the most powerful didactic tool in debate. Also, don't forget to make friends and have fun; don't stress too much.

I will be keeping it simple and will intend on looking in-depth in the rounds and to provide the information needed to explain why I gave a specific rank to each competitors.

Here's what I'm looking for:

Delivery: I wish to see you provide emotion and vocal variation in your speeches, after all these rounds can take up to 3 HOURS meaning as the round progresses it will be difficult to be heavily interested when someone is speaking in a monotone voice compared to someone who brings sadness, anger, and strength/impact to their speeches.

Fluency: I will be looking out for the competitors with the best fluency.

Interpret: This will be by far THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect I will be looking for. As a judge I inherently will not be researching the bills everyone is prepping for, so speakers who come up and provide an argument for a certain side of a bill on why their side is right without being confusing and overreaching and hard to catch up will get a big boost in how I rank. Essentially I wish to see speakers be clear and concise with their speeches because again, I will not have huge prior knowledge on the legislations at hand.

Legal Pad Dependence: Although it can be difficult to give speeches without a pad, I am looking for people who are not overtly dependent on their legal pad.

Uniqueness: If you make a common argument that is fine but if you go ahead and bring a whole new argument and make it unique and add new perspective, that will most definitely boost you in the ranks.

Late Round Speeches: As the round goes on and many arguments are used and it will obviously be difficult to make new argument that has not been overused. So for late round speeches I will not criticize you heavily if you cannot be special about it and instead focused more on refutation and delivery.