Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am the head coach at a high school in the Bay Area California. I am a competent judge, but you will take my word for it because I have not had the time to write a proper paradigm. Vote for me!

Judge Name: Laura Cauley

School: Heritage High School

Years Judging/Coaching: none

Familiarity/Comfort with Robert’s Rules of Order: Minimal

Importance of:

Evidence: Inclusion of "hard" empirical evidence: 9

Analysis: Logical claims explain the inherent problems: 9

Clash: Refutation of opposing positions: 7

Questions: Answers to questions clarify with precision: 7

Extempore: Spontaneous delivery; not reading word-for-word: 8

Delivery: Speaks smoothly, clearly, controlled, and polished: 8

Persona: Plays the part of a Congressperson: 5

Attitude: Has mature demeanor and "Congressional" mindset: 6

Other comments: I am more interested in use of hard evidence and it’s interpretation to support claims, than whether a speech is prepared or extemporaneous.

My name is Patrick Cook (he/him). I primarily judge congressional debate, although I have judged PF and LD and even Extemp once when they were desperate.

As a judge, I look for the three Rs: research, rationality, and respect. Great debaters do their research, have a clear and rational argument, and show respect for their presiding officer, and for their judges and fellow debaters. Those are the most important things.

My background is in academia, so I appreciate a precise citation.

With those basics covered, I appreciate creativity and humor, but I would advise debaters to make sure those never come at the expense of the three Rs. In particular, please take a second to think about whether any attempts at creativity and/or humor are going to detract from how seriously people view your argument or how seriously you seem to be taking the debate. If it doesn't detract and you can be witty -- go ahead!

Hello, I am a parent Judge with no prior experience

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

ALWAYS check if the judge is ready.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine and even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, it better be reasonable. Don't make false accusations for the sake of confusing your opponents or catching them off guard.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll give you some grace, but I will also cut you off if you go too far over. When in doubt, play it safe.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary. It's a fine line, pick your battles accordingly. Don't pick every battle.

Don't let things go- if claims or frameworks go unrefuted, they drop to the bottom of the flow.

If something is argued prior to grand cross, it can be brought back up in final focus. In other words: if you bring it in, then you make it fair game to be attacked or responded to.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing. Late round speakers should not just rehash previously presented arguments.

Please behave like actual senators/congressmen and congresswomen; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

Please do not speak too fast or too quiet.

As a parent judge, my primary goal is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants. While I may not have extensive debate experience, I bring a fresh perspective and a commitment to evaluating arguments on their merit.

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I appreciate clear and concise communication.
   • Please articulate your arguments logically and coherently.
   • Ensure that your speeches have a clear structure with well-defined points.

2. Argumentation:

   • I value well-reasoned and supported arguments.
   • Provide solid evidence and warranting to back your claims.
   • Avoid reliance on jargon; explain complex concepts for clarity.

3. Engagement with Opponent's Arguments:

   • Demonstrating an understanding of your opponent's arguments is crucial.
   • Refute opposing points with logic and evidence rather than dismiss them outright.
   • Acknowledge valid points made by the opposition when applicable.

4. Cross-Examination:

   • Use cross-examination to clarify and strengthen your arguments.
   • Both questioning and responding should be respectful and focused on substance.
   • Points gained in cross-examination will be considered in my decision.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adjust your strategy based on your opponent's case and my feedback.
   • Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness to the flow of the debate is essential.

6. Speaker Style:

   • While speaking style is subjective, I appreciate speakers who maintain professionalism.
   • Non-verbal communication, such as body language and eye contact, can enhance your presentation.

7. Impact and Significance:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments.
   • Explain why your case matters and how it outweighs or interacts with your opponent's case.

8. Fairness and Respect:

   • Treat your opponents, your partner, and me with respect.
   • Avoid any behavior that may compromise the integrity of the debate round.

9. Learning Experience:

   • Understand that my feedback is intended to be constructive.
   • Use the round as an opportunity for personal and collective growth in debate skills.

10. Final Focus:

    • Your final speeches should crystallize the key issues and emphasize why you should win the round.
    • Summarize and weigh the most critical arguments for a compelling conclusion.

Remember, I am here to learn and appreciate the effort you put into your debates. Good luck, and let's have a productive and enjoyable round!

clear, concise speaking not too fast because congress is a speech event

- cross examination is important because congress values both speech and debate

I look for cogent argument effective delivery and a clear thought process to reach conclusions.

Hello,

I am a parent judge with little experience. However, I have sat in multiple Congress sessions so I'm familiar with the flow of the round.

Judging criteria:
- Be professional, NO profanity or racial slurs
- Be respectful, don't interrupt or be rude
- Speak clearly and loudly, and deliver well
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have relevant, reputable research
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments
- Use CX time wisely and effectively

I'm a parent judge.

Please don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I must understand your arguments to evaluate them.

Logical consistency and depth of analysis are valued. Arguments should be structured and coherent, with clear connection between evidence and claims.

Mutual respect among debaters is expected. The ability to disagree respectfully and constructively is a skill I highly value.

Thanks for letting me participate.

I am an experienced parent judge, and I have been judging Congress for 4 years on all levels - district, league, state, national (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, ASU, Glen, MLK) - and seen some of the best kids in the circuit.

General: I value clash, round/audience engagement, presentation and referencing prior speakers. Do not give constructive speeches late in the round. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Keep questioning respectful and short - please do not preface.

Authors/Sponsors: explain the bill, why it works/solvency, what it does, why it’s needed. Authors can rank highly too! If there are final appeals, use this opportunity to summarize the round effectively.

POs: Be organized and know procedure! If there are elections, you should not be running unless you truly know your rules. I try to rank PO’s if you run a fast, fair, and effective chamber - PO’s don’t have to be perfect, but try your best not to mess up precedence and recency as it slows down the round.

Best of luck!

My name is Rupal Malpani(she/her). I am a parent judge but have some expectations for good debate. Below are my Congress paradigms:

Overall:

1. Please be respectful in speeches and during questioning.

2. Speak at a moderate speed and make sure to fluctuate between soft and loud dynamics so I can understand arguments and your main points. I appreciate being clear and concise!

3. Be a like-able & charismatic person in chamber, but most importantly be yourself!

Specifics:

- In terms of delivery, depending on the type of speech your tone should be serious lighthearted, etc. Ex: Don’t use a funny intro in a bill about humanitarian issues. I am fine with jokes if used in the right context.

- Make sure to clearly define your argument so I don’t get lost in your speech.

- For PO-ing, please keep the chamber efficient and fair and I will likely rank you.

- For authorships/sponsorships, make sure to clearly define the problem and how solvency is attained through your bill. I believe your speech sets the round up so know your job and do it accurately. I’m not opposed to highlighting future arguments in your speech but keep it minimal.

- I am heavy on refutations and clash. So, if you are a mid/late speaker, I will expect to see you engage with other speakers and refute arguments. Avoid name-dropping because it doesn’t add to debate.

- I value arguments that are well-thought, have reliable evidence(preferably quantitative and not older than 2018/19), are relevant to the topic at hand, and are well organized.

- Use the questioning block to strengthen your response. As a questioner, avoid prefacing and make questions consumable for speaker and the chamber. It’s a 30 second questioning block so I want to see good debate here. Make sure to not be aggressive or I will mark you down.

Hi team!

My name’s Claire and I’m a freshman at UCLA. I competed last year in congressional debate so I’m pretty up to speed with all things congress. I value well thought out arguments that interact with the main lines of debate in the round. If you speak late, you must have effective refutation. Ask succinct questions in cross. I despise being bored so please do not rehash something that has already been said. On that same idea, please be prepared, I do not care for one sided debates and it is unlikely you will be well ranked if you give a speech on the same side as the one before. Be passionate and engaged with the round.

Remember how hard you have worked and have fun!

I'm a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly and give me clear reasons like voting issues about why I should vote for you. I won't vote off an argument I don't understand.

Some brief background on me: My personal experience is mostly in congressional debate although I have competed multiple times in extemp. When it comes to my achievements, I was the first in my high school debate team history to qualify for NYSFL States as a freshman. I made it to TOC, NSDA Nationals, and NCFL Nationals. I have provided an outline to how I rank in congressional debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE JUDGING RUBRIC

I have crafted a comprehensive rubric delineating my judging paradigm for Congressional Debate. Recognizing that not all speeches or rounds are uniform, consider this paradigm a general guide for evaluating Congressional Debate rounds:

SESSION PARTICIPATION

• Speakers will face penalties for addressing fewer bills than the allotted time permits, typically two speeches per session.
• Recency-related issues leading to a speaker's inability to address bills will not result in penalties.

Note: Disapproval of pre-debate base-x bill agreements that are subsequently exploited, though not against formal NSDA rules, may lead to the deduction of Parliamentary Points.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 - AUTHORSHIP

• Focuses on introducing a specific problem, explaining bill impacts, and proposing effective solutions.
• Presents arguments requiring strong negation refutation for an impactful debate.

6 - AUTHORSHIP

• Effectively explains net benefits, discussing essential bill components without specific references.
• Provides arguments with some strong impacts.

4 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to net benefits generally, lacking specific details.
• Fails to provide strong impacts.

2 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to an unclear problem or weakly addresses solutions.
• Demonstrates minimal understanding of the bill's specifics.

REFUTATION, EXTENSION, CRYSTALLIZATION

• Refutation, extension, and crystallization criteria are evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the strength and clarity of the speaker's arguments, impacts, and overall contribution to the debate.

DELIVERY

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Demands attention through effective eye contact and vocal variation.
• Clear, compelling, and confidently delivered speech.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Speaks clearly with sufficient eye contact.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Makes poor eye contact but maintains a steady pace.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Occasionally looks at the pad, challenging to follow at times.

1 - INSUFFICIENT

• Constantly looks at the pad, speech flow is disrupted.

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC

• Evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the clarity, validity, and support of the speaker's claims.

ORGANIZATION

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Engaging intro, well-developed arguments, and a cleverly tied conclusion.
• Natural transitions enhancing cohesion.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Interesting intro, clear transitions between arguments.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Well-developed arguments, but transitions are boring or unclear.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Speech lacks cohesion, difficult to follow.

Note: Time deductions apply for speeches falling below 15 seconds or exceeding 10 seconds beyond the time limit.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS

• Responses rated from 4 to 0 based on clarity, confidence, and ability to stay on message.

PARLIAMENTARY POINTS

• Presiding Officers assessed based on Parliamentary Procedure, Recognition, Control, Communication, and Decorum.

ASSESSMENT

• Points deducted or added based on participation in the chamber, solving problems, raising motions, and asking questions.

This rubric aims to provide a nuanced evaluation of Congressional Debate performances, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment of competitors' legislative abilities.

Presiding Officers will be evaluated on a comparable scale, utilizing distinct criteria to enable their ranking alongside speakers in the room. The assessment encompasses the following key areas:

• PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: Examining the explanation, knowledge, and effective execution of parliamentary procedures.

• RECOGNITION: Assessing fairness and efficiency in recognizing speakers, adhering to speaker precedence and recency, and avoiding bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

• CONTROL: Evaluating the ability to lead in challenging situations, uphold decorum among delegates in the chamber, exercise sound judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency.

• COMMUNICATION: Reviewing the clarity and conciseness in explaining rulings.

• DECORUM: Maintaining a respectful presence in the room, with ratings on a scale of 0-4. Exceptionally poor decorum, similar to speakers, will result in a reduction of Parliamentary Points.

This comprehensive evaluation framework ensures that Presiding Officers can be ranked on par with speakers, considering their proficiency in parliamentary procedures, fair recognition practices, effective control of the chamber, clear communication, and respectful demeanor.

Hello, All

My name is Pranav and I have experience in congressional debate for 4 including at the National level.

When in Congressional debate, I look for a few things just like every Judge.

1.A clear structure

Keep Arguments sustained in such a way that is clear to follow.

2. A clear content

Arguments that really drive home the point that you are trying to make.

3. Uniqueness

Make new points. Having a different speaking style. Make your speech memorable. This is a long sessions and as judges, we don't want to hear the same arguments.

I am a parent/congress judge - I have judged on the local and national level.

I like to see speakers with confidence and passion. MOST importantly, your speech needs to be WELL THOUGHT OUT. I also value respect within the chamber above all aspects - having decorum and coming off as assertive NOT aggressive.

I am a big fan of creativity especially with introductions and I enjoy good evidence integration. Your speech does not need to be overloaded with data and statistics if they do not provide value to what you are saying.

I rank POs well if they are firm yet respectful and run the debate smoothly.

I am a lay judge. Please do not speak too fast, and I judge on quality, not quantity, of arguments. Always link your impacts and do not use any advanced theory (anything beyond disclosure) or advanced ks.

Overview

Hey, I'm Eshaan.

Debated at James Logan (RS) for four years.

Currently attending UC Irvine, not debating.

Please add me to the email chain: eshaandebate@gmail.com

Also please format the chain [TOURNAMENT --- ROUND # --- AFF vs NEG]

* My congress paradigm is at the bottom

TLDR

I'm out of debate and have zero idea what this year's topic is about so err on the side of over-explanation. Besides that tech > truth no matter what. I'll pull the trigger on any argument if you can debate it. This includes death good, spark, wipeout, tricks, and other tomfoolery. The only caveat to this are ad homs and other arguments regarding the personal qualities / character of other debaters. If it happened outside of round, it should be settled outside of round.

I read the K on the aff and neg throughout high school so I'm fairly familiar with most areas of K lit (pess, setcol, cap, etc.). I've also pretty much exclusively read framework against the K aff so I've been on both sides of the debate and will not hesitate to pull the trigger on fairness or extinction o/w.

Some other things if you don't want to read the specifics below

Tech > truth (always)

Please be clear. Clarity >>>>>> speed. I'll reward your speaks a lot. At the very least, I should be able to catch the taglines. I'd consider myself a decent flow but clarity is a must, especially on theory interps and analytics. I'm not going to catch 100% of the things you say, so if you think a round hinges on a small tech thing, either clearly flag it or slow down. Especially for online debates.

Judge instruction is highly appreciated. I try to do as little intervention as possible, so if you write my ballot for me I'll be pretty happy.

Everything below is a preference, not a rule, and can be changed with good debating. I probably have biases towards some arguments but I'll do my best to be as technical as possible. As I judge more, I tend to add to my paradigm to reflect arguments I have judged and my general thoughts on them. Most of this paradigm is post-Stanford.

Specifics

K Affs and FW

I read K affs throughout my career. They are tools to win and should be used as such. Smart K tricks, clever impact turns are all ways to beat the one argument you're guaranteed to hit (framework).

Generally, affs should impact turn T either at a form or content level. Most counter interps are arbitrary and easily lose to the limits. Affs should also try to explain the aff outside of T. It's not really required but it helps paint a clearer picture of how the aff functions, ballot solvency, etc. It's smart for K affs to defend as little as possible and be incredibly shifty, bc it wins rounds. Smart K affs should def not link to disads, and even if they do it should be pretty easy to leverage your theory of power to change the scope of impact calculus. However in the instance that the aff defends a material change in something you're opening yourself up to going card for card on something like the heg disad which heavily errs neg.

For the neg, I think framework should be in every 1nc, the time tradeoff is strategic even if you're going for another offcase position. Fairness is a good impact because it's true, however many teams have struggled to articulate the "why" it matters. Here, I think truth testing is perhaps the most coherent extrapolation of fairness alongside winning that debate has zero external impact. I'm also a fan of fairness internal link turning aff impacts or being a prereq to access things like subject formation. When I went for T, I would almost always go for skills or clash, but as I've thought about it more, fairness is probably truer (not easier to go for). However, I'm equally good for teams that go for skills impacts with the usual clash i/l.

Neg terror is amazing. Read 8+ off it's not like the aff is going to go for condo. Generally I think PIKs are underutilized whether they be reps piks (word piks, author piks, etc.) or actual piks such as reading your policy aff as a pik on the neg. All are viable and work at tying down what the aff actually defends. If the aff defends nothing, presumption is a viable 2nr.

Policy Affs and K Negs

Pretty much all of our 2nrs my senior year were the K. Strong link debating is great, generic links are not so great. However, I have had my fair share of wins on the state good / assimilation link. What matters is how you debate it, not what it is. With generic links and even links in general, I think history debating is severely underrated.

K's should be debated technically like any other argument.

Neg framework interps should not allow the aff to weigh their impacts. While it seems obvious, many neg interps I have seen have actually allowed the aff to weigh their impacts which seems kind of a non-starter. K tricks are great too. Plenty of things like no perms + alt solves i/l to case impacts, serial policy failure, ontology cross apps are fun and I would def pull the trigger on them.

For aff teams, honestly generic answers are fine for the most part, however you should leverage good 2ac cards later in the debate. There's some more general things written below but what I find the most glaring in rounds is having some answer to ontology. Most of the time if you drop it, you're cooked.

Theory against alts is a must. Most alts do nothing which can be exposed in 1nc cx. The ones that do something are wildly utopian and lose to the perm double bind.

If your aff has russia and china war impacts it's generally better to impact turn the security K rather than go for a perm. Lots of teams would have a much better route if they defended their reps and went for the impact turn. Most K teams aren't prepared to go card for card on the heg laundry list.

Disads

I'm fine for any disad you go for. The main thing is judge instruction and comparative impact calc. I haven't been in a crazy amount of these rounds, but explaining how I should leverage a DA vs case will help me write my ballot and improve your speaks. For example DA turns case is fine as an argument but doesn't really mean much to me outside of an explanation of why this matters and how that affects broader impact comparison. Unironically the whole novice trend of timeframe, magnitude, probability will be immensely helpful.

I'm good for politics. When I had to read disads, politics was pretty much the only disad available and the link is def real. Realistically, it's a consequence of the plan passing.

I don't know what normal means is on this topic. Quality ev resolves this. If the ev says the courts are normal means, maybe they are.

Counterplans

Process cps seem really broken on this topic, but also in general. The amount of contrived artificial net benefits I've seen is a testament to the fact. More aff teams should go for intrinsic perms and more neg teams should defend that textual comp is a bad standard.

I don't really care if perm texts are inserted in the doc. Arguably they definitely should be, but it really is only an issue if one team calls it out. It's interesting to see a generic cp text that has something like "we should do [PLAN] and consult someone " and then the 1n just adlibs the plan text based on memory. I'm amenable to arguments about competition if this ever gets brought up.

Theory

T - PTIV seems like the most reasonable model, though this is obviously debatable. Predictable limits to me is the most convincing impact. Reasonability remains an interesting topic. I'm not sure whether T debates cause substance crowdout because they might be substantial debates themselves as is every type of debate outside of those that end with an ev ethics. Judge intervention is also iffy because at the end of the day I'll probably intervene to some extent.

Condo - Go for it. I don't have much to say here as I've been in very few condo rounds as a 1-off K debater. However I will say at a truth level, the K probably o/w condo. It's probably the only theory issue that I default to as a voter, but again like everything else in this paradigm, this can be changed.

Misc

Here are some of my personal preferences and how I tend to look at debates, also including speaker point stuff.

I think debate is an interesting place to read any argument with a warrant. Some arguments I would be really happy to see executed well include warming good, alien wipeout, buddhism, and staking the round on a chess game. I'm not predisposed to voting on any of these, but it would be pretty cool to see.

Some arguments that I'm not really a fan of (but will not hesitate to vote on) - gregorian time pik. Maybe this list will get longer as I judge more.

I don't read ev. Sometimes I'll read ev out of interest, but unless it's something that's been contested throughout all rebuttals, what the ev says is solely what the debaters in the round tell me it says.

I think ethos can matter. While I won't vote one way or another I think it's an obvious fact that if you sound really good, I'll probably be at least subconsciously more predisposed to hearing what you have to say. However, while judging policy I'll do my best to separate speaking ability and argumentation and vote solely off the flow.

I'm decently expressive during round. Mainly if I'm nodding, I agree with you, and if I look confused I am 100% lost.

Speaks - My speaks are probably a little inflated. I'll try to adjust them based on tournament, division, etc. For now its loosely as follows:

• 29.6+ --- One of the best debaters I've seen in this division ever
• 29.0 - 29.5 --- Really good
• 28.5 - 28.9 --- Average - above average
• 28.0 - 28.4 --- Needs improvement - below average
• < 28 --- :(

Speaks for me are largely determined on a combination of smart decision-making and clarity and maybe sometimes humor and debate personality.

Congress

Mainly looking for clear framing, impact comparison, and speaking. Early speakers should set a clear framework for the rest of the round identifying key points. Late round speakers should consolidate issues and have refs to other senators.

Good POs will usually get in the top 5 (3-4). A large part of my ranks are determined off the flow and technical abilities of debaters. However excellent speaking usually separates good from great. This includes humor, powerful intros/conclusions, good tonal fluctuations, smart use of CX, and other smaller things.

Hey,

My name is Jay and I have competed for 4 years in Congressional Debate, World Schools and Extemp in the national circuit.

For Congressional Debate:

The main thing I judge is checking to see if you are establishing a clear net benefit or net harm. You are getting dropped on my ballot if you are on the negation and don't clearly tell me how the bill harms the American public. Similarly for the affirmative, I expect a clear establishment of the net benefit. Additionally, I expect a proper framework of debate. This means early speeches should be constructive to the round, with later speeches becoming extensions and rebuttals that add to previous speeches. Weighing the impacts of the affirmation vs. the negation is also very important in late-round speeches.

I am not a big stickler for rhetoric, but I look for a clear link between arguments (rhetoric is always secondary to clean argumentation). That being said, better rhetoric does add to your speech and make your speech even better in a round with great competitors. However, I expect intros/conclusions to be memorized and the speaker to have tonal variety. I am also fine with anything on cross-examination- I just want a clear point to get across with every question.

I usually rank presiding officers in my top 5. However, I expect them to run a fast and efficient round and a round with little to no mistakes. I highly discourage one-sided debate, especially at tournaments that allow internet access and I urge the presiding officer to emphasize that in rounds and work with the chamber to find solutions.

For WS:

The main thing that I look for is a clear net benefit and harm. Good weighing will immediately get you my ballot. For the rest on rhetoric, check above.

Good luck today- I hope everyone has fun!

I am a parent judge with limited experience in LD and policy. I would like all participants to speak clearly and at a pace that is easy to follow.

I am an engineer with two decades of experience in computer networking and security. Please assume I have no background knowledge of the topics being debated

Email for communication (feel free to say hello or ask about ballots) and email chains:edward.e.wilson.jr@gmail.com

Hello!

I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation and Pro Con Challenge

I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.

I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.

General Debate Stuff:

1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.

2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.

3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

LD Specific:

1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.

2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.

3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....

4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!

5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive evidence and points.

Congress Specific:

Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.

POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.

As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.

I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:

A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.

B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.

C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.

D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).

Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).

Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.

Legislators should always---

1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.

2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.

3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....

4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.

Cherry Creek 23 // KU 27

Please add me to the email chain: albawilsonaxpe@gmail.com

There's nothing out of the ordinary here - just do your job in facilitating a positive debate environment and always be honest and respectful. Ask any specific questions about my preferences before the round!

CX: I started policy in college so I'm still pretty new but I am okay with anything. Prioritize clear judge instruction. Speed is fine but not at the cost of coherency

PF: Always frontline in second rebuttal. Absolutely no new evidence in FF - FF should mirror summary (extend voters, impacts). I flow cx

Make sure your placard is clear, so I know who you are. Otherwise, state and spell your name out loud before giving a speech.

I will rank those who show clear understanding of bills higher. That means understanding key terms and the purpose of the bill.

Thank you very much!