I haven't competed in this event in almost 10 years. But spreading is heavily discouraged. If I can't understand your argument, it doesn't matter.

Congressional Debate:

I appreciate well-developed speeches that introduce key ideas that are relevant to the legislation. I value clarity, organization, and effective communication in debate. Arguments should be well-structured and backed by evidence. I'm not a fan of excessive speed; I prioritize quality over quantity. I prefer a debate style that is respectful and professional. Personal attacks or overly aggressive tactics will negatively affect your score and ranking.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: I prefer a traditional debate without spreading. I’m not a fan of excessive speed; I prioritize quality over quantity. Make sure your speeches are organized, logical, easy to follow with effective refutation. I do not appreciate progressive debating.

Hi everyone!

A little about me - I competed mainly in Congressional Debate throughout high school but also dabbled in Extemp as well.

Here's what I'm looking for in a chamber/what will get you ranked on my ballot:

#1 - New Contributions To The Debate

Please, please, please do not rehash the same arguments. Especially if you are at the varsity level. If you're going to use a previous argument, you must extend it in a way that transforms the debate or don't use it at all. This also goes for the evidence back-and-forth on arguments. Honestly, unless you have something utterly groundbreaking for your side, I'd rather you switch to another argument.

#2 - Following The Flow of Debate

After the first few speech cycles, I'd really prefer to see you refuting previous arguments rather than introducing new ones. Depending on how many speakers there are, in the second-to-last or last speech cycle, you should be in full-on crystallization mode. If you feel like you aren't prepped for a good late round ref speech or crystal at that point in the debate, really consider speaking on the next bill. I'll see it as a more meaningful contribution to the debate and your rank will fare better for it.

#3 - A Good Sponsorship

On my ballot, a good sponsorship can get you ranked high. A lot of debaters tend to shy away from sponsorships, which means that it becomes very difficult for the debate to get started and ultimately leads to a lot of disruption that wastes time for the chamber. A sponsorship is essential to setting the framework for the debate and brownie points for any debater than can find a unique way to include ref :)

POs -

Your rank will depend solely on your control of the chamber. As PO, you must have a thorough (if not complete) understanding of the rules and regulations of Congressional Debate, good precedence and recency (1 or 2 mistakes are okay, but several will have you dropped on my ballot), and no problem calling out for decorum if need be. In other words, run a fair and efficient chamber and you'll be ranked high on my ballot.

Overall, have fun with it and challenge yourself to do better than you did at your last tournament! Good luck :)

I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, Congress or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!”

I am a former High School and College competitor in both speech events and congress. I have 4+ years of judging experience and love being a part of this process.  I appreciate thoughtful, respectful competitors.   I do not appreciate competitors that speak too quickly or who are dismissive of other competitor's questions or comments.  I appreciate creativity and generally don't reward formulaic or overly choreographed presentations.

I have been speaking professionally in the corporate and academic spaces for 15 years, and I've taught rhetoric and argument for over a decade at both the university and high school level.

With that background, my focus is on actual debate of ideas through well-formed, well-delivered arguments. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and I expect to be persuaded, not bombarded with as much information as possible.

I do not want to hear spreading. I will drop you for attempting it, or simply attempting to speak as fast as possible. Having more arguments does not equate to having a better argument. You don't have to speak slowly--I can keep up--but there should be no speed talking.

Similarly, I have no patience for debating about debating. We participate in Speech and Debate because we believe people can arrive at consensus and solutions through expressing and debating ideas in the real world. We should, therefore, debate about the real issues. I will easily recognize and drop you for debate tricks or arguing the theory of debate/theory shells.

I want to hear clear warranting and impacting from evidence that establishes a logical progression, logic which avoids tautological traps, reductive debater math, and slippery slope/post hoc/complex cause fallacies (PFers, enough nuclear holocaust). I weigh on soundness of cause and effect, not the effects themselves.

I can judge off flow and of course expect weighing, but I'm much more focused on you proving your argument is stronger, not proving to me that your opponent didn't respond correctly, or why it is that I shouldn't choose their argument, so avoid focusing solely on the flow.

Feel free to run k and bring in critical theory, but please know that I have a PhD in critical theory, so if you run it you better be able to prove you know the theory itself and not just some reductive version of it. Proof that you're running a frame you don't understand will get you dropped.

Finally, I expect each competitor to treat their opponent with respect and decency. Any aggressive tactics or bullying (cutting off, talking over in cross, verbal reactions during opponent's speech, etc.) are frowned upon and can lose you the round.

Second year parent judge.

CONGRESS:

My Congress comments should have speech/PO criteria ratings based on National Forensic League training guidance between 3-6, entered as you're speaking so you have some minimal feedback on how I decided on final score for individual speech and eventual ranking. 3=Mediocre, 4=Proficient, 5=Excellent, 6=Superior

Examples: Originality of Thought, Organization and Unity, Evidence and Logic, Delivery.

I also attempt to score (in comments) how you handle questioning of your speech.

If time allows, I attempt to give constructive written feedback in the comments as well. Overall rankings take into account your entire performance in the round.

SPEECH:

The most polished student in a round with an easy to follow and interesting presentation (while also satisfying rules/objective/criteria of particular event) generally rises to the top of the rankings in my rounds. Please don't rush your introductions/teasers as it really helps me follow the rest of the piece.

I've also decided to try and assign speaker points to three main categories in your feedback depending on the speech event. This is to hopefully give you some minimal feedback indicating the elements of your piece that may have room for improvement. I always attempt to give detailed comments as well, but time doesn't always allow for this.

Points listed in comments do not necessarily average or add up to your final speaker point score.

27=Average, 28=Above Average, 29=Excellent, 30=Superior

From the National Forensic League:

INTERPRETATION (DI, DUO, HI)

Characterization

Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?

Blocking

Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?

Cutting

Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION

Programming
Were at least two of the three genresof literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama)used in the program? Did all of theliterature contribute to the theme orargument? Did the flow of theperformance make sense? Was therea balance among genres in theperformance?

Blocking
Can you tell what the performer wasdoing in each scene? Was it clearwhat selection the performer wasusing in each section? Did theperformer maintain control of themanuscript at all times? Was themovement motivated in theperformance?

Characterization
Did each selection have distinct andengaging characters? Did theperformance match the genre (e.g.,did the performer emphasize poeticelements when performing a Poetryselection)? Was the performancedynamic?

INFORMATIVE SPEAKING

Relevance:

Is the topic timely? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

Relatability:

Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by the topic? Does the speaker do a good job informing?

Originality:

Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING

Argumentation and Analysis

Is the student directly answering the question? Does the student develop justifications for their ideas and establish the significance of their points? Have they established a clear understanding of the topic area?

Source Consideration

Does the speaker offer a variety of sources? Are the sources provided credible? Are appropriate citations used when citing a source?

Delivery

Is the student using voice, movement, and expression effectively? Is the speaker confident? Is there consistent eye contact? Is the volume appropriate?

ORIGINAL ORATORY

Importance

Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

Relatability

Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive?

Originality

Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

STORYTELLING

Tone
Does the performer's voice alignwith the type of story they'vechosen to tell? Is it clear this storywould be suitable for children tohear?

Expressiveness
Does the presenter bring thewords to life using effectivetechniques to convey appropriateemotion? Do the presenter’sfacial expressions aid the overalldelivery of the presentation?Does the presenter seem engagedin the literature?

Relatability
Is the presenter delivering thestory in a manner that wouldengage young children? Does thepresenter effectively establish aconnection to the audience? Iseye contact used to engage theaudience?