Updated as of March 6th, 2025 for TFA

Hello, howdy, and how do you do, I'm Jomi Epoyun

I graduated from Northeast High School in Oakland Park, FL in 2017 and Florida Atlantic University with my undergrad in Comp Sci and Poli Sci and currently finishing my master's in Data Science in Public Policy and working in data analysis with specifics in data visualizations for political campaigns and research while coaching mainly congressional debate and extemporaneous speaking since 2018

Why I know what I am doing:

Since 2019 I have coached someone in the final round of every major circuit tournament Congressional Debate has to offer including last year's NSDA National tournament and TFA tournament in Congressional Debate

I have also been trusted to judge major elim rounds in extemp and congress including the 2023 NSDA Final round in International Extemp

In other words, if you know who I am, I know what I am doing, just ask around

What I look for in rounds:

This has changed over the years but a lot of my core principles still remain the same for the most part

I try to be as balanced of a content/speaking judge that I can so while at the same time I will be looking for if you are giving the most well-warranted, characterized, and impacted speech, I will also look for your ability to speak well through diverse emotional variation, authentic speaking, good pausing, tone and pitch fluctuations and inflections

Basically, I am a warrant guy just as much of a "way you say the warrant" guy

Speaking position does matter to be as well as I grade the speak, because late rounds delivered in the constructive phase of the round are just as bad as constructive speeches given in the late

Basically "DO YOUR JOB" relative to what is expected at your speaking position and what has happened in the round and therefore what you need to clash with in the round

I am the BAR guy as well so this means I am a sucker for fire rhetoric. Creative rhetoric. Rhetoric that connects that even makes some pop culture, show, movie, song references. Just something that ain't the standard congress rhetoric, especially because if I am at the tournament I have probably come a long way and I don't want to come a long way for something I could hear at my local tournaments

At the end of the day just show me the most amount of YOU and don't do the regular stuff every congressional debater and extemper

Yes, this paradigm is intentionally in Comic Sans. Enjoy!!

EXPERIENCE
Member of the NSDA's USA Debate Education Program for WSD. Captain of the Naperville Central HS Debate Team. Semifinalist at 2023 TOC in Congressional Debate.

CONGRESS
I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and deliveryin that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

• REFUTE -- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
• EXTEND -- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
• WEIGHING -- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
  Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

• ARGUMENTS -- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
• EVIDENCE -- Give strong quantifications wherever possible. Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
• PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

• INTROS -- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater), I will drop you -- yes this is hypocritical if you know me irl, I don't care.
• PADS -- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but won't drop you for using one.

WSD:
I come mostly from a Congress background, so I weigh speaking and style more heavily than other judges. However, that almost exclusively goes for speaking points and spreading won't impact which side wins the debate in my view.

I'm usually okay if you speak a little fast, but I need to be able to flow and if I can't understand you, I can't do that and it won't help you (plus your speaks will be pretty bad).

Other than that, content comes first. Make compelling arguments and give strong mechs for them. Examples of your mechs are preferred but not required. Impacting means a lot so do that well too-- a strong impact will win you the round if done well.

Some quick things that will get you ranked higher / make you do better:

• POIs -- I will drop your team if you constantly deny POIs or don't give them.
• SIGNPOST -- Trust me, it helps a lot.
• CLASH -- Please use clash-style refutation in The 3 and a little in The Reply. Use whatever Refutations you want in The 1/2.
• PRINICIPLE -- I love a good principle argument, but if it isn't done well then I'll typically take the practical instead. Analogies are key.
• RHETORIC -- Rhetorical analysis is too often missed out on in WSD, if you give good rhetoric (including a solid intro/outro) I will immediately pick you up for speaks.

Generally speaking, the easiest/fastest path to the ballot is the one I'm going to take, so make it obvious why I should pick your side.

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Disclosure: I've actively competed on the national Congressional Debate circuit for a number of years, Breaking to out rounds at Tournaments Like Blue-Key, Sunvite, and Tradition Additionally I was a state finalist and had many regional and national placements

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 wholistic 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:

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 or I are lawyers" is NOT a valid refutation. but if you are going to make a constitution-adjacent argument do not argue "bill is unconstitutional we should fail for no reason other than that"

Structure wise, Im 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 it if its intelegeble

Presiding officers:

POs start at number 3 on my ballot and will lose ranks from errors. They can also be displaced by phenomenal speakers. The PO starts at 3 because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round, in an ideal world this would mean that PO should start as a "one" as you can't have a round 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 there are who run for PO, the faster the winning PO loses ranks from errors because you're claiming 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 dont get anal-retentive over it. 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 never say "point of personal privilege to go use the potty"

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.

Hey everyone! I'm Arik (he/him). I’m a first-year international affairs major at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. I've been involved in the speech & debate activity as a competitor, judge, and coach for the better part of seven years. As a competitor, I mainly competed in World Schools Debate (domestic & international) and Congress!

WORLD SCHOOLS

In Worlds, I adjudicate on content, strategy, and style (in that order). Content and strategy is what wins you rounds, style is what determines speaks. I believe that doing well in all three categories is what makes good debaters great persuasively and substantively.

- Make & take POIs! It's the best (and only) form of direct engagement with the other side, make use of it! I'm cool with 1-2 POIs being taken in a speech. Taking none is somewhat suspect, unless the Third has a lot of uncovered ground to make up for.
- Stylistically, I think conversational tone/pace speeches are the most enjoyable to listen to as long as you cover what you need to, though this is much less of a priority in my assessment of the round!
- Have clear signposting & flag sections of your speech + its strategic importance in the round to make it easier on me to understand what we're getting into/why it's important.
- In First, cover all of the important things in framing (i.e. a counterfactual if THR, model if THW, etc.) & prove that you analyzed the motion well! I always love a bit of pre-emption & give me clearly structured and understandable substantives with robust mechanisms and accessible illustrations!
- In Second, open and delete paths to victory for your side- what are you winning on? How do you deal with the other side's material (refute) and how do you expand and maintain your side's arguments (rebuild)?
- In Third, tell me the clashes to consolidate & organize this debate: why is the clash important, what did they say (and how did you respond), what did you say (and how did it hold throughout the round), and how you explicitly win on the material & in the round. Weigh up your arguments against theirs and show me how your side has won the debate!
- In Reply, provide the voter issues/areas of the debate you won & give me a biased OA/RFD for ways your side won and how the debate developed from First.

CONGRESS

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

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

Round adaptation/POs/final thoughts: For speeches- don't be afraid to flip! The one thing judges (myself included) strongly dislike is rounds that lack new argumentative ideas because of everyone's lack of preparedness. For POs- avoid making mistakes and make sure the round flows as smoothly as possible. As a PO for high-level rounds at Harvard, NSDA, Yale, Sunvite, Blue Key, etc., I understand the value of a good PO for the round; that said, I rank POs in the middle-to-high end at the beginning (and it moves up or down according to your performance). Stay true to yourself, have some self-confidence, and bring some humor to the presidency! You got this.

=============================READ BELOW IF IN PF(Congress in under PF paradigm)================

Hi Debaters!

I am a "flay" judge when it comes to PF debate. I am aware of all debate terminologies and jargon. I prefer lay speed for speaking, but if anyone wants to spread or go quick, just add me to the email chain of your speech docs.

If you're in Novice/JV

I'm a pretty standard flow or "flay" judge. Here's what you should do in each speech

• constructive: read it; emphasize key points, clarity is key here; no super spreading

• first rebuttal: refute the opponent's case thoroughly, brownie points for rhetoric

• second rebuttal: refute opponent's rebuttal(aka frontlining) + refute their true case

• summaries: explain the arguments that I should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that(collapsing)

• final focus: summary but 2 minutes

if thou dost not signpost, on the ballot i will probably roast. please tell me which argument you're on when you start talking about it. it makes my job so much easier.

please ask me any questions you have about debate!

general stuff you should probably read if you're competing in varsity

- set up an email chain before the round and add yugmehta141@gmail.com

- concessions during crossfire are binding in the round so long as it's brought up by the other team in a speech.

- i evaluate the round in the following order: all weighing>link-level debate>evidence/warrant debate

- weighing is important but not if done wrong. nuke war magnitude weighing doesn't matter if there are 20 pieces of terminal defense telling me why it never happens. go for weighing when it makes sense, not just because your coach told you to.

- any speed is fine so long as you're not incoherent. if i need a doc to understand your speech, i will not vote for you. Here speak like I am a lay judge.

- postround me, it makes me a better judge.

Extra points

- if you want me to vote on an argument it needs a proper extension: recap the UQ, link chain, and impact.

evidence ethics are atrocious here. to encourage you to be better:

• +0.5 speaks if both sides set up an email chain before the round and use it to call for cards

• +0.5 speaks if both sides send each other (and me) all case evidence after reading constructive

- if you've ever debated on nats circuit, i much prefer that style of debate.

speaker points

- make me audibly laugh = 29.5(or higher if you debate well)

- making opponent laugh = 30

- disrespectful behavior = 25.

- bigoted/exclusionary behavior = as low as I can go + L.

• long, not well answers in cross will drop your speaks significantly. concision = productive crossfires.

Overall, I am looking for a respectful, competitive, and lowkey chill round.

============================================CONGRESS==========================

Hi congressmen and congresswoman(debaters),

CONGRESS
I rank each bill separately and then rank speakers based on cumulative rankings on each bill. If the chamber does 3 bills with base 2, I will find some equitable way to rank the round. I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and delivery in that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

• REFUTE-- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
• EXTEND-- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
• WEIGHING-- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
  Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

• ARGUMENTS-- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
• EVIDENCE-- Give strong quantifications wherever possible.Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
• PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

• INTROS-- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater),
• PADS-- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but probably won't drop you if you use one. Legal pads are preferred.
• I LOVE RHETORIC, USE IT!

Hi! I'm a senior at FAU HS and this is my 7th year competing in congressional debate.

If you care that much about what I think, I agree strongly with Chris Sprouse and Edward Wilson's paradigms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Padless performances are intriguing. I'm not interested in scripted, memorized speeches. If you can give a padless speech without compromising on round adaptation, that is seriously impressive.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't mind breaking cycle as long as new speakers contribute something valuable to the round. Don't flip sides just because you're anxious judges will rank you down for being the second aff in a row - I certainly won't.

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

Hi I’m Steven!

I competed in congress during high school so I’m incredibly familiar with the event. I am the former Captain and novice director of Bronx Science

Few things about what I'm looking for:

Sound logic about how the bill and your argument interacts with the squo and the rest of the round

Evidence that I can look up (Say actual citations I need a date and source)

Rhetorical appeal (I competed a lot and for a long time so I’ve heard every intro you can imagine. Dont use anything canned - def don't use an intro you heard from a recording) - honestly if you have a really good narrative that's delivered well throughout your speech I will probably pick you up even if your content isn't super strong

Refutation and weighing You need this in any speech cycle even if you’re the spons, I expect pre-ref (in a spons) so I know how you think your speech will interact with the round.

Speaking (Im going to flow speeches and questions, but an important aspect for this event, to me, is the presentation of your arguments) However, I will say that generally I am much more of a flow judge by all accounts, but if I'm blown away, an excellent speaker might end up being my 1

Questioning: Great way to pick up my ballot here. Absolutely love a good questioner who breaks down the other persons argument. Extra props if you ask a question I was thinking during round (this is by no means a requirement I just think it’s fun when someone asks something I was thinking about)

Lastly for pos, I personally loved poing when I was a competitor so I totally respect it. You’re going to be ranked well (t4) if you do a good job. If you really want to win my ballot here (or potentially avoid losing my ballot), if you do use an algorithm to track speaker order you should also be keeping track on paper.

Wow I’m reading this back and I realize all of this sounds super nit picky but trust me my judging is gonna to be really chill

Last note: Have fun :D

I'm Zach, I graduated from Naperville North in Illinois in 2023 and I'm now studying Economics & History at Vandy.

Experience: I've been around debate since 2017. I started in LD but I competed primarily in Congress in HS, where I won four state titles in Illinois, took home two big bowls for winning Harvard in 2022 and 2023, and amassed 23 career TOC bids. I've been coaching Congress in some capacity for a few years now, but this is my 2nd school year private coaching debaters on the circuit.

I coach middle schoolers with Nick Chen and high schoolers with Ethan Wilkes. I think about debate like 98% the same as both of these gentlemen, so anything you can find on either of their paradigms is more than likely a belief I share.

---

If you only have 5 min before the round & you want a TL;DR

Make good, well-warranted arguments. Think and debate strategically, show me that your side is winning, and do as much of your own analysis as possible. Being a well-rehearsed speaker who is only capable of giving their well-rehearsed speeches in the first 3 cycles and is incapable of making relevant round contributions is like eating empty calories.

Top-level: My basic Congress philosophy is that it is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is up to you. So do whatever you are best at. I'm not in the habit of rewarding a good sponsorship over a good crystallization speech (or vice versa) just because it is a sponsorship. Insofar as you are doing a sufficient job deploying arguments in the right place (early, middle, late) and showing me that you are the person with the best read of the round, you’ll get my 1.

“Best read” just means making the most strategic argument (does the most good for your side) at that moment in the round.

---

Some content-related things that may be useful to consider if you are debating in front of me:

Argumentation: I enjoy well-thought-out positions that explain the round from a perspective that hasn't been considered. I will not hyper-scrutinize every link or warrant in an argument, but if your claims are just unsubstantiated or flimsy intuition pumps, that is sad. Explain every part of your argument in a way that an average viewer on C-Span could understand.

Evidence and dumping a lot of “cards” in a speech is a poor method of doing Congress. I’ve always been of the belief that evidence matters very little if you have constructed a thoughtful and percipient analysis of the round. You should be able to articulate that through your own analysis. Unless it is a stat that completely changes or recontextualizes how we evaluate and understand other arguments made in the round (it almost certainly isn’t), it needs to be explained further. Also, a random "expert" giving an opinion, no matter how well-credentialed said expert is, is not really useful to me unless you can also explain the warranting behind their opinion.

Relatedly, I think warrants are super duper important. You cannot prove arguments with a piece of “evidence.” You need to provide a logical underpinning (or, in AP Lang terms, a defensible line of reasoning) behind your argument. And do so succinctly.

Frame well. I am an absolute sucker for debaters who can use framing to capture what arguments are and are not important. Congress involves many different debaters spewing many different facts at the judges -- the best debater is often the one who can provide the judge with a coherent arrangement of said facts.

---

Other stuff that might be relevant to you:

Presentation: Do not be boring. If you are an engaging and persuasive speaker who uses rhetoric and style effectively, you will be rewarded on my ballot. This does not mean just yelling and inserting random platitudes. This means making purposeful jokes, delivering creative intros, and incorporating unorthodox play-styles, narratives, or speech structures. Any way of doing Congress that goes past the two-point constructive mold will make me happy and keep me engaged throughout your 3 minutes.

I'll always reward debaters who flip. I have been in this position countless times, and I know it can be stressful and frustrating. Don't worry, as long as you give a good speech -- I've got your back. Note here that you shouldn’t let anyone pressure you to flip: giving a significantly compromised speech just for the sake of ‘advancing debate’ is deeply unstrategic and will make me sad.

For presiding officers, don't make any mistakes (and if you do, maintain your composure and deal with them). Be assertive. A good PO will always be ranked T4 in my book. Make sure you know your stuff before you run.

---

Be confident! Always go into every round with $100 on yourself. Most importantly, have a ton of fun and learn a lot. Please please please email me at wu.zachary@gmail.com. I am really bad at keeping a detailed flow and writing quality ballots simultaneously, but I have a really good memory so feel free to reach out if something is not clear.