Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

Hello! My name is Shaanti (she/her) and I'm excited to judge your round!

A bit about me: I graduated from All Saints Episcopal School in 2022 and am currently at UT Austin as a Sustainability Studies & Geography double-major w/ a Food & Society certificate. I did speech & debate all 4 years of HS, and it's actually the reason for the degrees I'm pursuing (lol). I'm primarily a Congress gal, but I also did DX pretty frequently—I've got a little bit of experience in IX, OO, and PF as well. I qualified to NSDA Nationals every year in House Congress and made semifinals in 2021 & 2022; my experience also extends to the TFA & UIL circuits, so you can rest assured that I'm not a lay judge.

Novices: I am going to judge you based on the listed criteria, but I will be more lenient as you are still learning. My critiques for you will be as constructive as possible, and I'll give as much advice as I can to help you eventually reach full proficiency. But practice makes perfect, and if you start implementing varsity tactics now, you'll improve quicker. Take a Congress round, for example: I don't care if you're stumbling because it's the first time that you're not staring at a legal pad; I prefer that over reading a speech word-for-word. It shows that you're taking the initiative to present more professionally.

Event-specific comments are headed and in bold/all caps. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read them before your round!

——————

GENERAL:

- Be a good human. It's not hard to show your opponents respect. If someone has preferred pronouns, make a conscious effort to use them. Sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/etc will NOT be tolerated by any means—chances are high that you will receive low speaks and and an immediate drop (If I'm judging your round, you've got a queer female POC writing your ballot, so keep that in mind).

- Give content warnings for potentially triggering topics. You are given time before you speak. Utilize it to make the space feel safer for those who need it. Even if it's something you may think is insignificant, it's better to be precautious.

- Don't be rude. I don't care if your opponent is new to the event or doesn't understand something you said; if you are patronizing or condescending, you get low speaks and possibly a drop.

- Content is very important to me. Unsupported claims will go right over my head when considering my RFD—give me evidence & analysis. DO! NOT! MAKE! ME! CONNECT! THE! DOTS! (That's your job, not mine.) Argumentation > presentation (though I still care how you speak).

- IMPACTS! For me to even consider an impact as such, it seriously helps if I hear numbers/quantitative evidence. Without them, I tend to drop the argument. The main exception is if you're using some type of theory for your impact, which is when you should do an effective job to prove its worth and applicability.

- Be passionate! Showing genuine interest about what you're talking about makes the round immeasurably better.

- This should be obvious, but based on experience I feel obligated to put this here: PLEASE MAKE SURE I'M READY BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING.

- Have your cards/evidence easily accessible in case I—or your opponent(s)—asks to see it. If I hear sketchy evidence, I'm likely to ask after it; for the purpose of an honest debate, I encourage you to bring up any concerns about your opponent arguing misinformation so I can look into it.

- Also on that note, make sure your sources are reliable. Please don't cite from a random person's blog and call it a day.

- I have a few auditory processing issues, so it's easier for me to understand arguments when things are spoken clearly enough. I'm not asking you to present in slow-motion, though; just watch your speed.

CONGRESS:

- Quality over quantity. Always.

- That being said, I do want you to be involved in the round. If everyone gives 3 speeches and you only give 1, then I cannot consider that as anything other than you being unprepared for the debate, and I will not be as lenient. Also, people undervalue the importance of CX, but at the very least it reminds me of your existence.

- If you're a pretty speaker but don't contribute anything to the debate, I probably won't rank you highly. BUT that doesn't mean I want a card-for-card debate case as opposed to a speech.

- I understand that many of you learned how to debate on Zoom. However, it is far less professional and effective if you are speaking from a laptop. For my higher ranks, this habit MUST be dropped. Like, by yesterday.

- If you read your speech, I'm dropping you.

-- (Unless everyone's doing it so I can't drop everyone. Seriously, though, please don't read your speech. It'll make me sleepy and sad—AND I CAN TELL WHEN YOU'RE READING EVEN IF YOU TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK OTHERWISE)

- Don't yell at other representatives in crossfire. Don't yell while giving your speech. Don't cut other people off rudely. All these will do is get you a lower ranking than you otherwise could have received. Be respectful.

- Rehash sucks. I hate it with everything in me.

- If you're going to crystallize, do it well. Otherwise, it's rehash. And I hate that with everything in me.

- CLASH IS GOOD, EXCELLENT, AMAZING, ETC.

- Humor is good as long as it is appropriate. Don't force something funny on life or death issues.

- It's not like I have the legislation memorized, so if you're referring to something specific in the bill/resolution, then refer specifically to it ("Section 2A says ... " etc).

PO-SPECIFIC:

- Don't be afraid to be a PO! I presided at tournaments all the time, so I understand their importance. I will rank you if you do a good job. However, don't assume that just because you PO I'll give you the 1 (I rarely give POs a top 3 ranking unless you're doing an exceptional job compared to the rest of the chamber). Preside well and preside with purpose. A bad PO hurts the round instead of helping it.

- Make sure I and everyone else in the chamber know your housekeeping rules. Don't contribute to unnecessary confusion because your procedure isn't clear.

- I keep my own precedence sheet and will double-check your procedure for any bias. Be fair.

- I encourage you to be as assertive as possible. However, don't conflate this with rudeness. Don't let others walk over you, but be respectful.

- You are the most vital person in the round. Make sure you're efficient!

- Be gracious when possible.

PF/LD:

- I never really got into LD and it's been a hot minute since I last did PF, so please treat me like a traditional judge (but don't confuse this with a lay judge! I understand your args and a lot of debate terminology, but some of the events' fundamentals may be new to me).

- I judge on the flow so if you have a voter, make sure I hear it.

- I'm fine with decent speed, but if you talk too quickly it'll either (a) sound like German to me, which I do not speak; or (b) go in one ear & out the other. Basically, don't try to spread. I don't flow what I can't understand. (See above for the last note in the general comments.)

- For the most part, I'm tech over truth, but I prefer valid arguments to anything else. I'm not going to believe or vote for what is completely impossible or unfeasible.

- Please give a roadmap before speaking! Anything as simple as an "it's going to be aff, then neg" is good enough for me. If I don't know what to flow, I simply won't flow it.

- I listen to CX, but it's not something I actively flow. If there's something you feel is a voter, bring it up properly in a ref speech instead leaving it for the final focus or assuming I'll remember (and don't just hint at it; if it's important enough for you to bring it up, I want to hear everything you think is of value). Otherwise, it's a dropped arg and a lost opportunity.

- If you don't have a standard, I'll adopt your opponent's. If neither team/competitor has one, my job is made all the more difficult. Help me with my RFD so I can help you win a round.

- If you drop an arg, I drop it, too.

EXTEMP/OTHER SPEECH:

- Content > presentation.

- That being said, I do care how you speak. Make it clear which point you're addressing and keep things interesting. Help me stay engaged in what you're saying!

- EXTEMP: while this is a speech event, you still have to provide compelling claims. Argumentation is VERY important.

- EXTEMP: you're speaking on current events. I want to hear RECENT dates (please don't cite something from five months back unless it's the only applicable evidence there is).

- EXTEMP: I will be nit-picky about whether you've answered the question or not. If your speech doesn't serve the purpose it's supposed to, there's little reason for me to rank it above one that does (even when presented beautifully).

- Quality over quantity for your sources. If you provide strong, well-reasoned analysis, I'm likely to overlook an empty space for evidence. (However, it is much stronger and more preferable if I hear ~7 sources per speech.)

- When applicable, provide a qualifier in your intro! Help me understand the significance of what you're discussing.

- Don't talk slow to use up your time. If I fall asleep, I can't rank you accurately.

- If applicable, have fun with your presentation! Making me laugh is guaranteed to put you ahead.

——————

That should be it! Hopefully I've covered everything, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round starts. If you want more details about your ballot, go ahead and email me at shaanti.dasgupta@utexas.edu ! The earlier, the better—I can go into more depth if I remember everything more clearly.

Good luck, and I can't wait to watch you compete!

About Me:
- Debated at Jesuit from 2015-2019 (2A)
- Have experience with all sorts of arguments, from mostly big-stick arguments my first few years to mostly K-oriented strategies my senior year
- Judged, coached, and cut cards part-time for Jesuit during the pandemic years
- Serving as assistant coach during my ASC year at Jesuit (2023-2024)

I’ve decided to update my paradigm for two reasons. First, after judging the first third of the season, I have generated some thoughts based the debates I’ve seen. Second, I thought it would be more helpful to modify my paradigm to give readers a greater sense of how I view debates generally (rather than just a list of bullet points).

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for death).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and you show me that you used your flows as the basis of your argumentation throughout the debate, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round (which will be reflected in the speaker points).

Theory

I’m unlikely to reject the team but have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency deficits, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts:While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good. On another note, I think the complex grammatical structure of the rez means that teams could likely get mileage out of defining more words together.

General thoughts:I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative. I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). A fun and underutilized aff tactic is to argue why a 1NC interpretation actually harms NEGATIVE ground/limits.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and underbaked “no link” arguments. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I often find that framework debates often become a wash and thus a secondary part in my decisions. I thus appreciate it when teams initiate a “compromise” of sorts near the end of the debate, such as by conceding part of the other team’s framework and still explaining why you win. This could sound something like “even if they win this debate should be about the consequences of the plan, we meet because the links are reasons why the policy action of the aff makes things worse.”

Other Notes on Policy-Oriented Debates

Counterplans:As mentioned above, I’m not usually enthusiastic to vote down a team on theory. However, if a counterplan cheats, the affirmative can argue that the problematic aspects of the counterplan justify things like intrinsic perms. Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantages:Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case:Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

I am a parent judge and a math teacher (ha). I am not a debate coach and did not do debate in high school.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have an auditory processing issue - I can keep up pretty well if you speak clearly. If you speak too fast, so that I can't understand and flow your argument, I will have a hard time assigning you a victory. Sharing a copy/digital version of the constructive/cards is a plus.

I want to hear clash. Bring new points. I do not like a debate that just ping pongs back and forth saying the same thing over and over. Make it interesting and weigh your points for me!