Tabroom.com

Farmington Invitational

2023 — Farmington, MN/US

Congress Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Mridula Arun East Ridge High School None

Jennifer Battan Eagan High School None

Bonnie Brynteson Robbinsdale Armstrong High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 4:42 AM CDT

Last Updated:1/18/2025

Pronouns: They/Them

Clash is defined as: when a debater directly addresses and refutes another debater's argument. Clashing is a central factor in debate, and if a debater fails to clash with major points, they will lose the debate.

Background:

Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 4 years. Coaching for one year.

Overview:

Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. Don't speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it.

Congress:

The only pre-written speech in a congress round should be the author. It is noted if any after the author is pre-written.
This is a DEBATE event. Rebuttals, crystals, and *good* authors are a skill. Give different types of speeches. Constructives are essential for a round to exist but I keep track if those are the only speeches you are giving.
I reward people who impact and weigh well. I drop people who don't have any sources or do not have any impacts to what they are saying.
There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform.
POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position. Auto 9 in my books. Same with sharing your PO sheet with the chamber.
The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you" is a time waster

LD Overview:

There is a trend this year where no one reads paradigms. These aren't suggestions. I cannot flow spreading, I hate K's. When you do not read paradigms, you are letting yourself be set up for failure.
As defined by the NSDA, LD is a mix of philosophy and argumentation. Nothing makes me more upset then when the neg gets up and concedes to framework and then never brings it up again. Your impacts are meaningless without framework, your weighing is meaningless without framework. You have nothing when we do not frame the round.

LD:

No K's
No spreading. I define spreading as if you are talking so fast you have to take a giant sharp intake of air to then continue speaking fast and/or you are completely out of breath at the end of your speech and are gasping for air. You should be able to speak at a pace accessible to judges and your opponents. In addition, most people do not know how to enunciate when speaking fast and I cannot understand if you are slurring your words together. If you read this and still decide to spread, then it is not on me if I miss critical offense; as a debater, you should be able to change your strategy based on your judge.
I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
Voters/Weighing/Framework is the only thing that matters to me. The only time I would vote off of a singular argument is if no one weighed or debated framework (which we have bigger problems then).

Patrick Champ Eastview High School

Last changed on Sun September 22, 2024 at 1:30 PM CDT

A note to all debaters: although I try to be completely objective when scoring, remember judging is essentially just my opinion of how you did. Your own evaluation of how you debated is at least as valid as mine and probably more so. I try my best to leave constructive comments for each speaker, but time constraints while a debate is in progress can make that difficult. If you do not get feedback, it's not because I do not care, it's because I ran out of time.

Expect comments of the form:

Cycle w/ notations, for example 3A (break) (cut-off) means it was the 3rd Affirmative speech, it broke cycle and the PO cut you off at 3m10s
Strength: Something you did well
Suggestion: Something to consider when working to improve

Congressional debate
I personally consider Delivery to be the most important skill you can acquire from debate because it's a life skill. Even if you never debate again after high school, being comfortable with speaking to a group is useful forever. My comments are often heavily weighted towards Delivery strengths and suggestions for this reason.

I prefer a traditional speech with a defined introduction, main body and conclusion:
1) Tell me what you're about to tell me (30 seconds) - Introduction
2) Tell me (2 minutes) - 2 or 3 main points
3) Tell me what you just told me (30 seconds) - Conclusion/summary

I use speaker points mostly for my use in post-session ranking but in general:
6 - Outstanding (rarely given)
5 - Excellent
4 - Average
3 - Below average (rarely given)
2, 1 - I don't use these scores

I try to be as objective as possible without introducing bias, opinion or knowledge external to the debate. If you claim "The sky is purple", back it up with evidence, persuade me, show why it matters, and rebut any opposition counter-claims, then the sky is actually purple for scoring/ranking purposes.

I also take into account the overall experience level of the chamber and judge each speaker in comparison to the others present. For example, if a novice House speaker simply reads a prepared speech, I'm much more forgiving in my rankings than I would be for a Varsity Senate speaker doing the same thing.

How I judge a debate speech in detail:
Introduction
Simple, direct and concise is best. An attention-getter (like you would do at a speech tournament) is probably unnecessary and uses valuable time. For NEG speeches it's ok to agree with something in the bill as long as you immediately follow-up with what's wrong with it: "While I agree that passing this bill to get "X" is a noble goal, the enormous problem of "Y" makes passage impractical and counter-productive".
* Main point overview - "Tell me what you're about to tell me". For example, something like "The main [benefits/problems] with this bill in general are financial which I'll cover in my 1st main point and quality of life covered in my 2nd and 3rd points about health care and tax reform" This can also set up your conclusion/summary where you can echo your intro and "Tell me what you just told me".
* Bill overview - This is critical in 1st cycle speeches. State the primary [benefit/liability] for [passing/failing] this bill as written. A short and meaningful (quantified if possible) impact statement is best. For example, "Passing this bill will feed 10 million malnourished children per year who would otherwise go hungry and cost just $50 per child - that's 14 cents per day per child!" i.e. AFF should avoid stating the $500 million cost directly, and NEG should do the opposite.
Content
* Organization - Speech should have a clear intro, main body (2 or 3 main points) and conclusion with obvious and meaningful transitions.
* Credibility - mispronounced words, world leader names in particular, can indicate to me that the speaker is simply reciting a speech written by the team.
* Decorum - Never raise your voice in questioning. Always refer to actual politicians and chamber members with their honorific: "President Washington said..." rather than "Washington said...". Respect the position even if you don't respect the person currently/formerly holding that position.
* Links & Connections - Whenever possible connect your related points to a previous speaker/argument, ex. "My 1st main point about financing [supports/refutes] Senator Lincoln's argument about budgeting and Senator Jefferson's claim about debt".
* Logic, facts & evidence - Ideally, about half your main point explanation(s) should "prove" why the bill should pass/fail.
* Persuasion & passion - Ideally, the other half should convince me why you are correct and/or the opposition is incorrect.
* Answers - Simple, clear and concise answers are best. Never raise your voice no matter how aggressive the questioner gets. It's ok to subtly critique the questioner when appropriate, ex. "That was a long winded question but I'll do my best to answer in the few seconds remaining..." or "That was a statement. Do you have an actual question for me?"
Arguments
* Claim - simple, clear and concise is best. "This bill will cost $500 million dollars and the country simply cannot afford it right now!"
* Proof, experts & citations - Support your claim with evidence from subject matter experts as much as possible. Avoid long back and forth "dueling expert battles" in questioning. It's ok to point out "your" expert is stating the exact opposite of "their" expert but let it go after that.
* Impact / Explanation - Tell me why it matters! Use intro phrases like "This is important because..." or "The primary overall impact of [passing/failing] this legislation is..."
Clash (N/A for 1st cycle speeches) - Be specific and detailed when you tell me what's wrong with the opposition's case.
Closely related to "Links and Connections" above. This is most important at the Senate level. If your speech is presented like a 1st cycle speech with no clash, it will impact your ranking.
* Speakers - Name all previous speakers who made similar (but distinct) points before making your new point.
* Arguments - Group similar but distinct previous arguments together as well.
Delivery
Do not simply read your speech. I give some allowance for 1st cycle speeches, but holding a laptop with both hands, standing still, looking straight down at the screen and reading will impact your ranking.
* Extemporaneous - your prepared material should be used as notes and not as a script. Using voice technique (volume, tone and pacing) to add impact/drama to your most important points will positively impact your score/ranking
* Gestures - Use hand gestures to add non-verbal emphasis and impact to your important spoken points.
* Movement - Use meaningful movement as a non verbal signal to indicate transitions. For example, as you end your intro and start your main point 1 topic sentence, move 3-6 feet to your left or right and again at other main point or summary transition points. Avoid meaningless pacing and shifting from foot to foot as it can indicate nervousness.
* Eye contact - "Talk" to all members of the chamber - center, left and right - switching at transition points is fine. Avoid just talking to one "location" (judges and/or the floor/ceiling/back wall)
Conclusion
The word "Affirm/Negate" does not count as a conclusion if you run out of time speaking on your main points.
* Main point summary - Make the transition obvious with something like "So in conclusion..." and then add a sentence or two about the broad categories of your main points, something like "The main [benefits/liabilities] of this bill are financial as I clearly explained in my first main point and quality of life as my 2nd and 3rd main points on health care reform and fair taxation prove." The categories you choose (financial & quality of life in my example) give following same-side speakers an easy way to link back to your speech as well.
* Big Picture statement - One or two sentences on the primary impact of [passing/failing] the bill is good enough, but tell me why it matters.
Time - anything between 2:30 and 3:09 is fine.
Do not force the PO to cut you off at 3:10, this will impact your ranking. A common comment I make if you ran out of time or rushed your summary is something like "Consider using the PO's 2m30s double gavel tap as a signal to begin your conclusion to avoid running out of time."

For crystalization speeches, I strongly prefer advocacy on one side or the other. If you properly flow the debate you can simply add a statement in your intro and conclusion to support either AFF or NEG to avoid breaking cycle. For example, in your intro say something like "I'd like to focus this debate by first summarizing the AFF speakers and their arguments. Follow up by summarizing the NEG side, and conclude by telling you why [AFF/NEG] should get your vote". In your conclusion something like "Now that I've summarized both sides, let me tell you why argument "X" is the most compelling, briefly explain the Big Picture impact of this legislation and ultimately why it's important you vote for [AFF/NEG]". It is critical you reserve the last 30 seconds of your time for the conclusion and advocacy statement. Use the PO's 2m30s gavel double tap as a signal to end your main point discussion.

Presiding Officers are judged on:

Speaker Recognition (Precedence and Recency)
Fair and even distribution of speaker recognition throughout the chamber when preset precedence is not used is important, i.e. you do not constantly favor Reps. sitting on the right side of the room. Making mistakes, but catching and correcting them will impact your ranking a little, not catching and correcting them will impact your ranking a lot.
Parliamentary Procedure
You handle motions, timing and voting efficiently. It is critical you use the standard/recommended NSDA timing signals. If you confuse speakers with non-standard signals, it can and probably will negatively impact your ranking.
Delivery / Presence
You speak loud and clear. Call on speakers quickly. Shutdown post-time arguments in questioning, etc.
Running a smooth and efficient chamber is key. "You did your job so well I barely noticed you" is the highest compliment I can give.

Grant Davis Robbinsdale Cooper High School

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 5:35 PM CDT

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE! This page is meant to be something you can read right before round and get a general idea of what's up

~~.......................................................................................................................................................................................~~

Any pronouns

Did Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan HS, NPDA Parli 2019-2021 for the University of Minnesota, PNW CARD for one semester '23

Congress coach @ Armstrong and Cooper in MN 2019-2024ish

Instructor/lecturer @ a few places

Email chain / critiques : grant davis debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Naz, and I cannot stress this enough, Reid.

~~.......................................................................................................................................................................................~~

Every event

Bullies get dropped

Trigger warnings should be asked b4 the round, not mid speech

It's fun to have fun

~~.......................................................................................................................................................................................~~

LD/Parli

I don’t judge these as much anymore but I get some rounds here and there. I know how to flow but I def don't know the meta.

Mid judge for circuit strats. Bad judge for paraphrasing. Terrible judge for spreading. Even worse judge for unexplained jargon.

Ask opponents if it’s ok to spread before you spread. I probs can't understand your spreading, I'll clear/slow you until I can. 50% is a decent starting point, haven’t judged a spreading round in well over two years and haven’t spread myself in four (I was not good at spreading). Not voting for something I didn’t catch. Not voting on something I can't explain back to a middle schooler.

Not flowing off a speech doc but pls share it w me

Tech=truth: Just be a good debater. I’ll vote for stupidity idc. Wipeout, war good, dedev, truth>tech, idc just say it w your chest and let it rip.

Judge instruction is my fav part abt this activity, followed by conceding fw, followed by turns of any kind

~~.......................................................................................................................................................................................~~

Congress

#AbolishPOs (don’t worry I still rank y’all)

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

Mahidhar Duvvuru Eastview High School None

Tirsit Enbackom Eastview High School None

Aaron Erickson Coon Rapids High School

I am a coach for Coon Rapids High School and have multiple years of experience judging debate.

Please be kind and courteous to all other participants and judges in the room, everybody deserves respect. Please stand up when speaking if possible and do not include offensive language in your arguments.

Congress

Most importantly remember that this is a debate activity. Especially at higher levels, all speeches past the authorship/sponsorship should include some elements of callback to speeches that came before them. This becomes more important later in the round and each subsequent speech should include more argumentation and debate than the ones before it .I do not want to hear new information in the final speech on a bill unless it is used to refute an argument made by the other side or to build up an augment already made by your side of the debate.

Speaking skills are also important. I do not mind if you use a laptop or tablet but would prefer to not see a pre-written speech in favor of a speech that allows you to engage with the audience. This will both increase your presentation and speeches that utilize key notes instead of a pre-written script are easier to adapt to what's happening in the chamber as well as limit speaking mistakes that come from reading.

I do not like to see breaking order for a one sided debate. I believe that all students should be prepared to speak on both sides of an issue and if you are not ready to do this I am not likely to look at you favorably. Again, this is a debate activity, I do not want to see multiple neg speeches in a row, but should see alternating speeches that allow actual debate to present itself in the chamber.

PO judging- I will not forget to rank you if you are the PO. If I give you a bad score it is because you earned it not because I forgot to rank you. That being said for me to give a favorable rank to the po they need to do very well. A po will average around 5th for me and they can go up or down from here

Public forum

what I want to see more than anything else is impacts and weighing those impacts against your opponents. If your Impacts make sense that is even better, I do not want to see an impact that 2 million people will die if there is no solid proof backing this up. If you are able to show that your opponent's impacts will not actually happen or turn them this is even better.

Besides this weighing. If one side says 100 thousand people will lose housing and the other says 100 thousand will go without food explain to me why your side is more important than theirs.

Other things Please do not give off time road maps, this just wastes time in the round and signposting is more effective. If you give an off time roadmap I will start your timer here which means I will quit flowing your arguments before you think your done.

other things.

I do not care if you have technical difficulties and if these affect your performance I will probably not rank you very well, and will not grant additional time to get these issues resolved.

I prefer that you don't speak too fast but if I am able to understand you I will not fault you for this.

I will never disclose or give feedback in the round.

Brandon Fisher Rosemount Sr High School

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 2:59 AM CDT

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 17 years, coaching for 11, and this is my fourth year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. You are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give lower speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.
While I think everyone in the round is responsible for the correct pronunciation of names, the PO having elected to run the chamber should be particularly wary of name pronunciations and take the time to learn names and pronunciations before the round in which they are electing to run.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up. If you aren't ready to speak, don't delay previous question.

Some specific things I'm picky about: Congress speeches are only 3 minutes long. I think there are two common trends I've seen from some people which don't fit this style of speech well. First of all, with only 3 minutes I don't think it makes sense to have 3 full arguments. I'd much prefer you have 2 well-developed points within your speech rather than 3 shorter and less warranted ones. There's too little time in this type of speech to present that many arguments in a well-developed way without speaking way too quickly or sacrificing other important needs in the speech as well. Also, I think previewing your points in the intro is a waste of time in congress. Sure, a preview is useful in something like a 7 minute extemp speech or a 10 minute Oratory because of the length and depth of the information covered in those types of speeches. In those cases, a preview helps to compact that information and help outline what will be discussed. In congress, with only 2 main points to follow and only 3 minutes to speak, it feels like a waste of time. I'd much prefer you just gave us your agd, link it to the topic, tell us to pass/fail, and then jump right into the first point.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

Jonathan Fuentes John Marshall High School None

Raquel Fuentes John Marshall High School None

Liz Haen Mahtomedi

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:09 AM CDT

For Congress:

EXPERIENCE: I have coached Congressional Debate for Mahtomedi High School since 2023.

I prioritize argumentationover stylein Congress. Since I am a former LD coach, I like to see weighing in speeches and clear impacts throughout the speeches.

I also prioritize primary research. Citing a news release from NBC.com about a study on nuclear waste is not as valuable as the actual study itself. I've seen rounds where debaters engage in arguments about the preference of different evidence/articles and it all seems like a wash if no one has the primary research.

You will earn a higher rank if you do the following:

1) Have a clear focus of your speech. This means that your speech is not two or three arguments that are related only by the bill. Think of this as having a value in LD-- if I value freedom in a constructive, then all my arguments will build on the idea of freedom. I prefer having this organization in a speech.

2) Make sure you always IMPACT your arguments. Why are these arguments to your position? Why are these arguments the most important in your position? This obviously helps if you have a focus of your speech, but you can still make a general impactofwhyis this important to the American public (since you are larping as a member of Congress).

3) If you are speaking after the 2nd or 3rd "set" of speeches, then I expect you to engage in clash with other debaters. Reference previous arguments made, build upon those positions and demonstrate how your position is superior to your opponent's. I should be hearing the names of other debaters come out of your mouth as you respond to their positions.

4) If you are speaking towards the end of a debate on a bill, your entire speech should be more crystallization than anything else (no new arguments or evidence!!). Instead, this is the "final rebuttal"-- meaning, you are reviewing the arguments that have won over the course of the debate.

5) When you are questioning, you should have a plan to your questions. For example, making a speech that centers on the importance of privacy means that your questions will continue to explore this concept and how it does/does not show up in other debaters' speeches.It keeps your argument relevant to the round!

6) Use all of your time in a speech. Do NOT stand up and give a 1:00 speech.

For LD:

EXPERIENCE: I have coached LD from 2008-2022 for Mahtomedi High School.

SPEED PREFERENCE: I will be flowing, so I prefer an understandable pace. Faster than casually talking is fine. However, speaker points will be hurt if your enunciation/articulation will be impacted. And if I miss something due to your rate of speaking, that's not on me (this is a public speaking activity, right?). Getting as much stuff on the flow is not a winning debate strategy (in my opinion).

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems sometimes seem unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate. HOWEVER, I understand that values can be very influential to the round (like privacy vs freedom). IF you do engage in a value debate, make sure it is clear WHY one value is preferred; a general statement like "well, you need freedom to have privacy" (for example) is not an argument I find convincing.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly. So, it would be best to avoid.

5) I don't like debate theory. It oftentimes feels like an excuse not to debate the resolution. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

Melissa Hagberg Blaine None

Kari Hovorka Osseo Senior High School None

Velavan Keerthivasan Lakeville None

Gladys Kim Eagan High School None

Brendan Klein Burnsville None

Jonathan Lemaster John Marshall High School None

Ali Mahbub Eastview High School None

Yash Mangalick Edina High School

Prathima Nagaraj Lakeville None

Rami Sammond East Ridge High School None

Owen Sandlund Robbinsdale Armstrong High School

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 2:13 PM CDT

BACKGROUND: I did LD for 3 years during my time in high school debate and congress for one. Feel free to run any framework or contention lvl argument in front of me, I don't judge your sources or opinions but your ability to debate and defend them.

LD JUDGING:

-Framework-level debate is a priority for me, if the round is messy, I will default to the winner on that level. I like to see a clash with the framework.

-Do not spread, if you are speaking too fast for your opponent to reasonably respond to you, or if I cannot understand you, I will judge off what I can understand in the round. I did debate for a while; I should be able to follow you.

-Refer to your opponent as "my opponent" or the "the affirmation" or the "the negation".

-Evidence rules should be adhered to.

Congress:

-To be transparent with my judging I rank each speech in the room from highest to lowest scoring, the highest scorers get my 1 on the speech, I then add up all of the points for each individual debater on all of the bills. Overall lowest scores place, higher. This means you need to speak on every piece of legislation, or you will be saddled with a 1 on one speech and a 9 on another and average out to around a 5. One great speech will not win you the round. If there is no reasonable time for everybody to speak, I will not use this ranking system.

-please please please be prepared to speak! unless you have a crystal or rebuttal heavy speech you should be standing up constantly throughout the round.

-For experienced POs, if you make more than one mistake, I will drop you. If you are exceedingly wordy, I will drop you. If you do your job expect to get at least a 5 from me in an average room.

-Questioning is cool, I used it as a tiebreaker in my ranking system. If you bring something up in questioning that somehow gets more references in rounds than speeches are getting, it might go a little further. Do not just stand up with statements.

-Name drop and extend other speakers on your side of the debate, rebuttal your opponents. This should be happening from the start.

Brian Schilling Duluth East High School

Alary Schmitt Edina High School

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 1:12 AM CDT

My name is Alary Schmitt. I did Congressional debate and a variety of different types of speech throughout high school (mainly a variety of interp, but I also did some public address and extemp); now I coach Congressional Debate for Edina High School and judge. I use they/them or he/him pronouns and am nonbinary & transmasculine; I prefer neutral or masculine titles, so Mx. or Mister both are preferred over Miss or Mrs.

General notes: I try to write as many comments as I can, but I often spend more time listening to your speech than I will writing things down. Also, if any comment I give you contradicts the advice your coaches give you, then take your coach's advice before mine.

For judging Congress:

I love good authorships or sponsorships. Please give me a good authorship or sponsorship. I like them more than rebuttals or crystals. Frankly in some ways I think they're harder since you set the tone of the debate. Please please give me a good author or sponsorship speech.

This is a pet peeve but please make eye contact with me/your other judges/your fellow reps. (Preferably your fellow reps/the other judges; I don't actually like making eye contact, I just like knowing that you're looking around instead of staring down at your legal pad/laptop).

PO: I love POs. Presiding officers will get great ranks from me personally. Don't be biased towards your team or your friends (I will notice). If you are good at precedency and recency I will love you forever. Leadership will also get high marks from me (this applies to you even if you're not presiding; I will notice if you're taking charge of docket coordination and it will make me think favorably of you).

Questioning: If you are too long you will get ranked down from me. Please at least let the person you're asking questions ANSWER. That said, the more questions the better and the more I'll like you.

Other things I enjoy and will rank higher: impacts, linking, a good AGD, and signposting.

Arun Singh Eden Prairie High School None

Alex Smith Benilde-St Margaret's School

Corey Thuen Chaska High School None

Sydney Tuttle Andover HS

Congress:

If you contribute meaningfully to the debate (rather than reading a pre-written speech repeating arguments), that's a good way to rank highly with me. I want to see clash and rebuttals, even if those rebuttals are logic-driven and not necessarily evidence-driven. I want to see that you're following the round and thinking critically about it.

I understand wanting to stay relevant in the round, but please be mindful of the questions you ask. I am unimpressed by questions that are really a statement that you end with "wouldn't you agree?" or "what's your response to that?" Please don't use questioning periods as time to bring up other evidence or preface. And ask questions that are relevant to the speaker you're asking them of. If they didn't talk about an argument, a question about that argument doesn't make sense.

Public Forum:

Arguments that are well-warranted go further for me than an argument you try to fiat your way out of. Almost always, I think that's a cheap way of dictating the round and avoiding a question.

Don't make me do the work of making arguments for you because I won't and a half-baked argument isn't going to generate you a lot of offense on the flow.

On the topic of weighing- do it. Give me quantification, a weighing mechanism, magnitude, an impact calc, I don't care. This goes along with the whole judge intervention thing- I want you to be pretty clear what I should flow as most important in the round.

I'll take a logical rebuttal to an argument if that logic is very sound. If that logic is sound, I may not necessarily need evidence read to clunk up the argument.

I enjoy giving feedback after the round and I'll usually disclose if I've made my decision at that point. Feel free to ask me anything else you'd like to know. But don't shake my hand please I'm not a fan.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a pretty new LD judge! I'm not the most familiar with LD mechanics, but I do know what good debating looks like. Other info in my paradigm applies to LD as well.

Adrienne Verma Wayzata

Collin Westgard Eagan High School

Snigdha Yamajala Eden Prairie High School None

Login to Tabroom

Farmington Invitational

2023 — Farmington, MN/US

Congress Paradigm List

Judges