For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

Tabula rasa/blank slate

Debate is not about winning or losing, it is about how precisely can you put your point across and communicate without exhilarating or getting nervous. Have a clear mindset to absorb the information. Learn, listen and Speak.

Wishing everyone all the best !!!

I'm a parent judge who has spent the last two years judging PF and LD. I'm an attorney and litigator and, as a result, particularly value your frameworks, clarity, and argumentation over technicalities regarding flow. In addition, I'd prefer you remain topical and I have limited interest in theory. In other words, while I will track points made and dropped, and consider them, I'd prefer you point such matters out once (and argue for the point's importance) and then return to your overall argument, and I'd prefer that the debate remain focused on the topic at hand and not spin out into unrelated areas. A novel argument is great, but an unrelated argument is not going to win me over.

I enjoy a good crossfire, but I won't vote on cross unless it's brought up in a summative speech. I get frustrated with debaters that have effective crossfires that aren't utilized - please remember to do that. Also, being aggressive is great, but don't cross the line into being inappropriate, rude, mean, etc.

I indicated this above but I love a good framework and the ability to stick to it. If you are able to respond to your opponents argument, or learn something in cross, and fit that rebuttal or information into your framework - or a natural extension thereof - I will be an admiring judge.

Finally, please do not speak to fast. Share your information, but remember you're trying to convince me of your argument.

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.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Last Chance BQD:I took 5th at Nats in BQ so I have a pretty good understanding of the event. There are little to no limits on arguments you can run in BQ so I will be pretty tabula rasa when it comes to argumentation. I, personally, believe the event should be debated pretty lay/accessible but I will not hold that against you if you run technical arguments. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm for more information.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

I have done LD (both as a competitor and judge) for multiple years. When judging a round, I first evaluate which framework is left standing, and then I evaluate all impacts in the round under that framework. If you don't explicitly link the impact to the framework, then I won't do it for you. You will win the round if you can directly link your impacts to the winning framework and clearly show me, and tell me why, your impacts are better than your opponents.

If something is dropped, you have to tell me that it was dropped, and only then will I actually extend it. If you say something was dropped and it wasn't, I will not extend it, so don't make up drops. I can handle speed, but I prefer you speak at a conversational pace and definitely do not spread. If you do talk fast, make sure you are clear enough that I can actually follow along.

.

.

.

.

"Nah, I'd win"

Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

Hello!

I am currently in my 18th year as head coach at Canfield HS (Ohio). For many of those years, I have specifically coached Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Extemp, and/or Congress.

At most tournaments, I serve as a member of the tournament staff, often helping run debate.

When judging, I keep a rigorous flow. From my perspective, both the big picture (framing of the round) and the details (line-by-line) matter.

While evidence and cards are essential, explanation and context matter as well.

Clarity is key. Going too fast can impact your clarity as well as my ability to follow your argumentation.

Signposting during rebuttals helps distinguish debaters as the round progresses. Crystalizing your arguments and overall position as the round progresses is key. Jargon can be used but please do not overuse it. Debaters excel with clarity. Often, jargon impedes clarity.

When determining the winner, I definitely consider each debater's KVI. Do you know how you could win the round and can you articulate that accurately to me?

Best of luck at this tournament!

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at myrant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Affiliations: Hawken, VBI

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

I favor a traditional judging style.

PF/LD/Parli: I am a flow judge; however, arguments must be clearly stated and explained (i.e., minimize spreading). Since I will be flowing, please accurately summarize your case during your final focus. If you inaccurately state that someone has dropped an argument or brought up new evidence, I will lower speaks. I like to see technical arguments tied logically to outcomes. I prefer arguments directly connected to the resolution (i.e., I consider long link chains to be generally weaker arguments). I expect all participants to behave in a polite and professional manner.

Hi, my name is Korey, and I will be your judge today. Here are just a few clarifications on how I flow my rounds in order to give you the best chance to get my vote. No matter how I vote, if you give an honest effort and enjoy yourself, I will leave the round with a positive impression of you. Debate skills can always be improved, and I will do my best to help achieve that improvement.

LD:

Framework, framework, framework! This is what LD debate is. For me to vote, I must be voting under a framework in the round, and whichever side wins the framework debate is the side whose framework I will flow arguments under. This makes it important not just to prove why your framework should be preferred over your opponent, but also to prove that your case fulfills your opponent's framework as well. Arguments fulfill value criterion which measures value.

Voting Issues- somewhere in your final speech, you need to tell me specific points that you win that make me want to vote for you. These can be stated explicitly (best) or implicitly, but you must tell me reasons to vote for you. Remember, these have to be reasons that impact your framework (and possibly your opponent's framework.) Even if you prove that your case creates a massively positive impact, that impact needs to be relevant to the framework I am voting under to matter in the round.

Dropped arguments do matter, but they have to mean something for me to count them on my vote. If an argument is dropped, you need to call that out for me (I will not do it for you) and you must tell me what impact has been disregarded as a result of that. If this impact holds weight in the round, then it is a huge point for you, as long as everything else goes well. On the flip side of that, try your best not to drop any of your opponent's key arguments either, whether those be arguments they make in their case or rebuttals against yours. This doesn't mean you have to respond to every little piece of evidence put against you, but if it is a point that will hold relevance in the round, it needs to be responded to.

I like off-time roadmaps as well. Not super specific ones, but just something to give me a better introduction to start your speech than just starting your time. Example: "This will be a 4 minute affirmative rebuttal to my opponent. I will start by addressing my opponent's case and then defending my own if time allows."

I take notes on cross examinations, but I do not vote off of them unless you bring it up in a rebuttal. Anything said by your opponent in cross that you find incriminating must be explicitly called out in a speech.

Run whatever you'd like as far as progressive arguments go, but if you're talking almost exclusively in jargon and your opponent says they can't handle it, I'm going to flow as though you did not warrant any arguments. You should feel comfortable with your terminology to the point that you can explain it all. Don't say things you don't understand; that defeats the educational purpose of this activity.

I hope you have fun in this round and the whole tournament! I love LD, and I hope you do too and spend the time needed to get to a high level of success in this format.

PF:

All I really need here is for you to give me more impacts than your opponent. Obviously if one side has a really strong impact that is not responded to, then that outweighs 5 weak impacts that were all adequately responded to, but basically I am looking for whichever side proves to have a greater impact. Please be respectful to everyone in the round, and keep everything as organized as possible.

I will flow crossfire in PF, and I will count what you say in cross against you, but if it is something significant, an opponent should bring that up again in rebuttal to tell me the impact of what was discovered in crossfire. Also, please don't make Grand Cross a shouting match. It would be very entertaining for me, but it's not necessary in the name of respect.

Good luck everyone! Let me know in the round if there are any questions you have about this paradigm. Thanks!

Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)

Current LD coach, current Congressional Debate coach, former Speech coach

How many LD rounds have you judged?

200+

What is your preferred rate of delivery?

7 -8 (quick conversational style)

--Dislike spreading

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

No

How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Yes: Clear value and applicable VC are needed to establish framework.

Rebuttals and Crystallization preferred

Voting issues should be given:

KVIs are important; sign post for your judge to aid flow

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) during rebuttals:

--Acceptable

Final rebuttals should include:

Voting issues, crystallization

Voting issues are:

Absolutely necessary

How do you decide the winner of the round?

I decide who is the winner of the key argument in the round by presentation/defense of contentions and any drops that flow through

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

9 = Always necessary

Please describe your personal note-taking during the round

I keep a rigorous flow

Traditional Judge

Public Forum: As a PF judge, I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As a LD judge, I am more of a traditional judge and prefer that the debate come down to one of the framework rather than contentions. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Congress: As a Congress judge, I like to hear clear and supported evidence in order to make an opinion about the legislation being debated. I enjoy hearing passionate speakers who care about their constituents. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

I am a traditional judge.

I am a traditional judge who prefers a more conversational style, so "spread" at your own risk. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you. Try to avoid getting lost in debate jargon, and I strongly prefer traditional LD debate to “K’s” and “theory” arguments. I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round.

1. Philosophy : I approach LD debate from a philosophical standpoint, valuing the clash of ideas and the depth of analysis over mere recitation of evidence.

2. Framework : I believe that the debaters should clearly establish a framework that guides the round. This framework should be logically consistent and serve as a lens through which arguments are evaluated.

3. Clarity : Clarity is paramount. Debaters should articulate their arguments clearly, avoiding jargon or overly complex language.

4. Contention Analysis : I expect debaters to thoroughly analyze each contention presented, weighing its significance, providing impacts, and demonstrating how it relates to the overall debate.

5. Logical Reasoning : Debaters should employ sound logic in constructing their arguments and rebuttals. Logical fallacies should be identified and refuted.

6. Evidence Quality : While evidence is important, I prioritize the quality over quantity. Debaters should provide well-sourced and relevant evidence to support their arguments.

7. Ethical Conduct : I expect debaters to maintain high ethical standards throughout the round, respecting their opponents and the rules of the debate.

8. Flexibility : I appreciate adaptability and flexibility in debaters. They should be able to adjust their strategies based on their opponent's arguments and the flow of the round.

9. Clash : I value substantive clash between debaters. Debaters should engage directly with their opponent's arguments, rather than merely delivering prepared speeches.

10. Decision Criteria : Ultimately, I will base my decision on which debater presents the most persuasive and well-supported arguments within the framework established at the beginning of the round.

After wide experience as a speaker and debater during my elementary and secondary education, I have subsequently served as a volunteer coach and judge both during my university career and beyond. After completing my graduate degree, I embarked on an international career spanning several decades and five continents, during which I not only drafted and composed speeches for senior UN officials, but also represented the United Nations myself as a speaker in a variety of fora and media.

Although debating formats have changed dramatically since I participated in the event decades ago, I have attempted through both observation and coaching to keep abreast of developments in the newer forms that have emerged more recently. Obviously, I still tend to prefer the more traditional style of debate with which I am most comfortable, but I am always open to expanding my horizons.

As someone who has broad experience in both speech and debate, I tend to value argument and style equally. While the strength of an argument can be paramount, its eloquent delivery can ensure that it is communicated effectively. In addition, even though the vigorous presentation of an argument can be more convincing, civility in the adversarial process remains something to be cultivated and cherished.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

I am new at judging and not an expert on the rules of debate. I will not focus on the technicalities of the rules of debate that much and will concentrate more on the content that you say. I value warranting over evidence, being able to argue why your speech impacts is what may convince me.

I believe that the main goal in a round is to make your point clear to the judge, so please explain your points well so that I can be able to count them in the round and don’t worry too much for the time constraints, I prefer you take a few more seconds to explain your ideas clearly than have me not understand your point. I dislike it when people focus more on reading from their screens and don’t focus on addressing the audience or the judge, the screen is not who you are trying to convince.

I value focus, organization, confidence, eye contact, and good sources.

flow judge; debated pf for 4 years

PF preferences:

General Round Info:

• I value warrants more than evidence (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to card your responses, however); every response and argument should have a warrant behind it.
• All turns should be weighed because they are independent reasons to vote for you.
• I will keep track of time, but I'm not too strict. You can go 5-10 seconds overtime in order to finish your last sentence.
• I'll only call for evidence if you tell me to AND if I think it's important to making my decision.
• Time your speeches! I'll time them too, but this helps you know what to cut out/add and how fast you should be speaking.

Case:

• Don't spread
• No friv theory, theory and progressive arguments are fine but I won't know how to evaluate them.
• I'm tech > truth. Even if what you say is blatantly false, but your opponents don't respond to it, it's considered true for the round.
• If you are running potentially sensitive arguments, please include a trigger warning.

Crossfire:

• Be respectful but also assertive.
• Any concessions in crossfire are binding
• Any concessions in cross must be brought up in speech in order for me to flow it
• When the time runs out, whoever is speaking can finish their thought (max 5-10 seconds more).

Rebuttal:

• Make sure to signpost and try to weigh as well.
• 2nd rebuttal should frontline and collapse.

Summary:

• Weighing is especially important in this speech (You should do the work for me in your speeches so I don't have to intervene).
• Make sure to be organized throughout the speech. You can do this by signposting as well as having a structure to your speech. Offtime roadmaps are encouraged.
• No new responses in 2nd summary.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Please extend your case.

Final Focus:

• Everything said in FF should have been in summary.
• Make sure to extend case and focus on weighing. (Look to the summary section for more specific information.)

Hello!

I am a parent judge who has judged a few tournaments in the Cleveland area for LD, treat me like you would any traditional/lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and be organized in your speeches. Good luck!

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches

I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.

I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
• Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
• I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
• Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
• I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!

I debated for four years at William Tennent High School, mostly LD (but I did a good amount of Policy as well). I am now an Assistant Coach at Pennsbury High School and a student of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The details of my personal life may bore you, but I only include them so you can know that I am not completely clueless in the realm of debate.

To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:

>The most important aspect of my judging philosophy is tabula rasa.

>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.

>I am fine with spreading. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

>I love good framework debate. It's easier for me to pick a winner when I have a clear lens through which I can evaluate the round.

>I guess evidence is nice and a good thing to have. Extending that evidence throughout the round is also nice.

Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.

"As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself..." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I am a traditional judge who prefers a more conversational style, so "spread" at your own risk. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you. Try to avoid getting lost in debate jargon, and I strongly prefer traditional LD debate to “K’s” and “theory” arguments. I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round.

I am a traditional LD judge. I do not approve of theories or any other critiques. Please use simple language and while I can follow most spreading, if I cannot listen to you, it is your loss. I enjoy framework debating so try your best to weight under both frameworks. Lack of evidence is not a real rebuttal.

I did LD debate for 4 years from 2014-2018 and competed at various levels during that time (local tournaments, out of district tournaments, states, and national circuit). I am a flow judge and will write down all your key arguments, evidence/cards, etc. I care for debaters being able to substantiate their arguments (ex. using sources, logic, etc.) as well as stating why that argument matters (i.e. how it assists the aff./neg. side in winning the round).

Feel free to use theory, jargon, and debate terms (ex. political philosophic theories, KVIs, cross apply, line-by-line, etc.). I do my best to be flexible to the various styles of debaters, so feel free to argue the flow how you wish (just make sure to sign-post). I do prefer KVIs but again I am flexible.

I give time signal and call out prep time in 30 second increments, but I will gladly accommodate debaters if they prefer less/more signals.

Hi, my name is Gopal Varshney and I am a senior engineer in software technologies. I design software and know a few languages in software development at my workplace.

First, You are welcome in this LD speech and debate tournament.

Speaking:-
While I am a traditional judge, I prefer to judge the debate without spreading and I really like impacting arguments so spend a lot of time on it during rebuttal speeches.

Expectation:-
As far as the current topic, I am aware of various facts and findings.
Clash on framework and arguments are encouraged. You may do an off time roadmap and clearly mention it in your speech. It helps me flow.
I expect teams to be civil and respectful during the crossfire and during the entire debating rounds.

Substance:-
Have logical and consistent arguments. Every argument should explain exactly how you win the debate. I love evidence and take note of arguments grounded. Provide ample evidence during your responses and impacts.

Have fun and enjoy the tournament !

TL;DR: Tech > truth. Theoretically will be comfortable voting for any argument you present to me, so run whatever you're best at, and don't over-adapt too much. Comfortable with speed, just include me on the email chain. My email is webb@muhs.edu.

Background: I debated policy and LD at Marquette High in WI before studying philosophy and economics at Yale, and am currently the LD coach at Marquette.

Random Argument Thoughts:

Phil: If running phil cases is your thing, great - I really enjoy philosophy as a subject, and love rounds in which a debater is clearly passionate about a thinker and knows their thought well. If, on the other hand, you're unable to coherently explain your framework in CX, I will likely tank your speaks. FWIW, I wrote my undergrad thesis on Heidegger and plan to write my master's thesis on Nietzsche.

LARP: Probably my favorite kind of arguments to judge because they provide the easiest means to substantively engage with the topic, which I think is a good thing. CPs should be competitive and have net benefits, DAs should have uniqueness, affs should have inherency, etc.

Ks: Go for it. Please just make sure you're able to explain what the links are and how they're contextual to the aff. Ideally, there will be an ROB or some framing work done to explain why the K comes first. I prefer when K affs are at least tangentially related to the topic.

Theory/T: Honestly, I get kinda bored during theory debates and am not great at flowing them if the shells/responses aren't in the doc. My least favorite debate rounds to judge are those in which one side blows up a 5 second blip that their opponent didn't flow. I have a pretty low threshold for buying responses to friv theory.

Tricks: A conceded argument is a conceded argument, so long as it is sufficiently warranted. However, this is the area of debate that I am least familiar with, so these will require you to hold my hand a little bit.

LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.

Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.

Hello!

My name's Jake Zartman and I'm the Assistant Debate and Extemp Coach for Louisville HS in Ohio. I competed in Congressional Debate (and USX) from 2012 to 2016. Most of my experience comes from the Ohio circuit, though I had the chance to compete on the national circuit a number of times throughout those years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.:

I’m far from the most experienced tech judge in the world. Aside from a few rounds of Public Forum in high school and my having watched like a hundred rounds of Policy, my knowledge is reasonably limited.

That being said - I do understand argumentation, warranting, and impact analysis. A novel, well supported line of argumentation will always hold sway with me. I may not have hundreds of hours of experience line-by-line debating, but I know a weak argument when I hear one.

I am also well-versed enough to tell when debaters are acting in bad faith or debating abusively. So, for your sake and for the sake of the round itself, please debate fairly and respect your opponent at all times. Abusive or uncivil behavior is the only guaranteed way to lose my ballot.

***LD SPECIFIC***: Though I'm likely to favor the contention-level debate because of my background, I am also happy to vote on framework as necessary. I'm fairly comfortable with progressive debate, generally speaking, as long as you're willing to engage in good faith with an opponent running a more traditional case. Spread at your own risk, and only if your opponent is comfortable with it! (And if you can signpost clearly!)

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC: I will follow NSDA procedure and established WS norms to the absolute best of my ability. I expect to see clash, good argumentation, and human-centered impacts, but above all I expect you to debate your opponents fairly. If you can meet them at their highest ground and articulately present your case, I will ultimately vote for the team that most completely and persuasively argues their side. Also, I coach Extemp and so do appreciate extemporaneous speaking!

Congressional Debate

My overarching philosophy is pretty simple: Be an advocate. As a mock representative or senator, it's your job to be an advocate - for your constituents, for your communities, for the things you believe in. Each time you take the floor should be purposeful, instilled with a sense of passion and purpose.

There are three main ways to be a good advocate in a round.

The first is to engage your audience, competitors and judges alike, through effective presentation that is both clear and rhetorically sound. You can't bring attention to an issue or demand better for your constituents if no one wants to listen.

The second is to be unique in how you go about making your case. If I've heard the same points rehashed over and over again, I'm naturally going to assume that while it is important, your non debate-progressing information probably isn't. Novel argumentation wins!

The third and arguably most important way to be a good advocate is to put people first. Impacts are just as important in Congressional Debate rounds as in any other, possibly even more so because the role forces you to consider how the legislation will affect the people represent. That frame, that every action can be measured by how it affects the imaginary citizens of your districts, can be a powerful tool in a round - so use it! A bill might cause economic damage, it might help the environment, but those impacts mean nothing without considering how those changes will alter the lives of real people. Law isn’t written in a vacuum!

Hopefully this is at least somewhat illuminating, and good luck!

Email: jake.zartman@lepapps.org