Hello! I'm Stuart Beal.

First, a bit on my debate background. I did four years of pretty traditional traditional high school policy debate (competed almost exclusively on the UIL circuit in Texas). Now, I compete in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate for Columbia University in New York City. (Most of the following information is related to policy debate, but I feel that my judging philosophy is better communicated through a more specific discussion of policy debate issues than it would be if I tried to generalize my philosophy to styles of debate I'm less familiar with.)

I've judged more kritiks than I've ever encountered myself in round, so when it comes to those types of arguments, I am slightly unfamiliar, but not in the slightest opposed to hearing them. Honestly, at times I think the fact that I have less exposure to k debate makes a lot of k arguments more convincing to me. Other than that, I will also say that I have less experience with super technical CP debate. If things get intense technique wise, the team that's able to more effectively explain to me what's going on is probably going to be the team that will win the argument.

Past all that, I have a very open judging philosophy in that I will value the arguments that you tell me to value. Even widely held assumptions like T/framework taking first priority because they're procedural arguments need to be communicated to me. If aff turns T and explains why topical AFFs are bad and neg doesn't respond, T will become an aff advantage. I will never make a team win because of some sort of base assumption about how policy debate works that I personally hold.

I make decisions based on world comparison, based on which world, aff or neg, is a better one. I'll do this comparison with the impacts and weighing communicated to me by both teams and I will only intervene to weigh arguments myself if there is absolutely no other way for me to evaluate the round.

In terms of the argument preferences I do hold, I like fun T arguments and sometimes get annoyed by CPs.

No onto speaking points. I will flow every speech in the round and would like to be able to flow without having to check the speech doc for tags and authors. Highest speaker points will be given to the speaker that forces me to check the speech doc the least amount of times. So, signposting really well and speaking clearly on tags and authors is the easiest way to receive high speaks from me. Additionally, passionate speaking and intentional/convincing delivery will be rewarded.

I will dock speaker points for unwarranted attitude. I'm totally fine with things getting a little petty and heated, but there's a line and crossing it will result in docked speaks. Also, in addition to being too prickly to the other team, if I catch any disparaging comments being made from one partner to the other, speaks will be docked.

Additionally, and this should be obvious, any explicitly harmful language used whether it be sexist, racist, ableist, queerphobic etc. will result in speaks being docked and tournament officials being contacted.

Hello,

This is Ajay Bisht. I am a parent judge from California and have experience judging congressional debate at local, state and national tournaments. In congressional debate, I expect a well-structured speech and look forward to the following things-

1) Quality of speech and facts - bring new facts to the table and refer to fellow senators if they have already raised your points

2) Presentation skills - be clear, loud, assertive and respectful

3) Responses to arguments and questions- again be respectful here

4) PO- expect to run the debate with equal opportunity and without any bias towards race or gender.

Lastly, please ensure that the speech is your own and you have in-depth knowledge of the bill.

All the very best.

I'm a KU student and debated all 4 years for Manhattan High. I competed at nats in congress and pf all 4 years. So, that means I have experience and am a flow judge. If you drop something accidently and the other team calls it out and I catch it, you automatically lose the argument. Please signpost pretty please :))) I'm honestly open to any argument!

Speed - I'm not a big fan of spreading. I likely won't catch everything if you're spreading. I don't mind fast talking when reading cards, but when giving analytics slow down please. You don't need to go slow though.

CPs- love CPs! I used to run these all the time. The only thing about CP's is that I don't like when they contradict your other arguments. Please have good solvency cards for your CP. Also, please don't run abusive CPs.

DAs- DA's are good. Try to get a specific link, but if you can't, I'm still down to vote for the DA.

Ks- not my fav arg. I can understand them sometimes and will vote on them, but I'm not the biggest fan. I would prefer for you to not run it.

T- love T. If the neg wins on this, they will win the debate. Make sure you extend everything on T.

On case- PLEASE RUN ON CASE. I BEG YOU. When the aff doesn't respond to each argument and you call it out, it is so satisfying. I love on case if you can't tell.

Congress: I'm all about charisma. If you make a good joke, I'll love it. Also, please do not repeat others' points in your speeches. Also, I love neg arguments that attack the mechanisms of the bill/resolution.

I have been a speech and debate parent for five years, a volunteer coach for two years, and an assistant coach for one year. I have judged speech, public forum, and congressional debate over the five years. I am a Tufts University graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a Wayne State University graduate with a Master's Degree in Social Work. I have been a Licensed Independent School Social Worker for 23 years working with K-12th grade students, parents and staff. I did not debate in high school or college but I have gained experience through judging and coaching. While judging, I work to provide feedback of strengths and weaknesses of individuals and teams. I look for the combination of content and presentation as well as debate etiquette and composure. I look for clash, well written rebuttal speeches, fair questioning rounds, confidence, and effective delivery. I also look for strong data and impacts to determine the winning team of the debate.

Good Luck!

I serve as the head coach of a middle school speech and debate program. I have taught public speaking for 9 years, judged speech and debate on the high school and collegiate levels for multiple years, and coached competitive Speech & Debate for middle and high school students. I serve as a regional director for Northwest Florida and work to support new coaches and train judges. My specialties are Congress and Interpretation Events.

For IE events, I look for coherent, organized writing and cuttings. At the highest levels, the technical skills in your speaking will be scrutinized. Clean transitions and movement, clear cuttings, and good characterization with distinct voice, posture and mannerisms.

In debate events, I value good speaking with clear, coherent arguments. I have degrees in Political Science and History. I have taught public school for 12 years and worked as a trial paralegal through college.

I'm pretty open-minded in general, but vulgar or overly profane statements for pure shock value won't win me over, especially if it isn't age appropriate. Make sure your use of profanity or illicit content actually contributes to the overall performance or argument being made.

Do not spread. If I cannot follow your argument, I will not vote in your favor. Debate that cannot be understood is pointless so save the gamesmanship for someone who prefers that style please.

Use of evidence is important. Not all evidence is created equally so don't throw blogs and websites out as proof of anything that you say. You should be using valid sources and prepared to provide your evidence if I ask for it.

Evidence itself does not win an argument. The impact wins for me. Why does this matter? Why should I care? How does it impact my world? If you can convince me that something has a direct impact on me, I will vote for you.

Don't speak in shorthand. Assuming that others will understand your jargon for arguments or citations isn't good speaking.

Command the room. Use movement and emphatic gestures.

Don't be rude. You can make good points without belittling anyone else. It is ok to call out the absurdity of an argument, but not the intelligence of the person making it.

I have judged congress and pf multiple times and I know how the rounds should work and be judged. I love clash as long as it stays respectful. I am going to look for passionate speaking and I would like to be convinced through how passionate you are on the topic. I judge tech over truth, meaning I am going to go into the round, and I will not think about any other previous knowledge I have on the topics.

I want to emphasize the importance of respect in this competition. It is not just about winning or losing, but about having respect for your opponents, for the judges, and most importantly yourself. Treat every individual with kindness and understanding, regardless of their performance. Remember, we are all on this journey together. Please do not discriminate against anybody else in the chamber/round as that will be an automatic loss. Everybody comes from different backgrounds, and everybody has different beliefs and those need to be respected.

i am a debate mom and i have done my own research on the topic. I am not a truth judge but if something is very obviously wrong I won’t flow that argument.
Public forum is supposed to be understood by the average person so please do not spread. If you would like to spread please send me your case beforehand.

I want to encourage you to take your time and speak clearly, ensuring that your words are not only heard but felt by those who are listening. Let your passion and emotions shine through your performance, captivating the audience and judges.

Have fun and don't stress out! You're going to do great!!!!

annette.chambers.lkht@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Sarayu Cheemalapati (she/her). I graduated high school in PA in 2023 and am currently a student at Pitt studying Political Science. I debated all through middle school and high school, having topped the TOC bid scoreboard and the NSDA National Rankings in Congressional Debate during my senior year, as well as placed 4th at NCFL and semifinaled TOC and NSDA Nats. I also have experience coaching, judging and competing in World Schools, Big Questions, Informative, Impromptu, and Extemp.

I absolutely do not accept any form of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ableism, islamophobia or any type of hate. If I hear any type of this in any way, you will be dropped on my ballot and I will report you to the tournament immediately.

Congress:

TLDR: I am 55% presentation and 45% argumentation, ultimate ranking comes down to doing your job as a speaker based on when you speak, refuting is important. If a bill has one-sided debate, flip or move on.

Presentation: Make it sound like you are persuading me to pass or fail. At the end of the day, anyone can have good arguments, but presenting them well is what is mainly going to help me as a judge differentiate you from other competitors in the round. Add personality into your speaking! Don't be monotone and make it look like you're just reciting. Be funny, tell jokes, do whatever makes you a unique speaker!

Argumentation: Try to provide a card for arguments where you NEED it. Today, there are arguments that many can run with logic, but be careful. Don't rehash other people's arguments unless you are using it to weigh or to crystal. It shows how much you are actually paying attention to the round. I will pay attention to well-crafted and structured arguments with good rhetoric. Also, structure your arguments depending on when you are speaking! I rank based on if you fulfill your role as a speaker/debater given the time at which you are speaking (ex. strong constructive for authorship, crystals for late round, etc.)

Flipping: I will always give those flipping a higher rank than an okay speech on the same side in a row. There are exceptions to this, but it's simple. I do not think anyone wants to hear to same aff argument for an hour.

Refutation: One of the most important things to me in getting my rank is refutation. Anything after the first aff should refute, recognizing their opponents and telling me why they are wrong. Strong constructives without any reference to any of your competitors, in my opinion, only hold some sort of value until the second neg, otherwise, it does not contribute anything to the round.

Presiding Officers: In order to rank high, POs should run the chamber in a fast, efficient and unbiased way. I trust you to be able to follow the procedure you set, follow the standard/tournament rules, and make minimal mistakes, especially when you make it known for the start that you want to preside/run in a PO election in order to preside. POs tend to rank generally high from me if you do your job. It is simple: the less I think about you during the round (in a bad way), the better ballot you will get from me. I will probably let some of these rules slide if you are the only one willing to preside in a round/being forced to preside.

Any questions about in round issues, feedback, paradigm, etc, email me: cheemalapatis@gmail.com. Be confident and have fun!

PF---------------------

treat me as a flay, i try my best to evaluate everything. But I will sometimes evaluate dropped things if it still applies. Logical arguments good. Warranting very good.

zach.chen101@gmail.com

Congress paradigm:

In general

-----------------

Present logical arguments

- links

- good evidence

Rhetoric

- moves your speech forward

-sounds good

Please have impacts, your argument has very little weight without impacts

Authorship/1st neg:

1st aff should spend a lot of time defining the problem in the squo and spend a lot of it with the sections of the bills that solve the issue. Make it easy to understand.

1st Neg: Mention 1st aff speaker at least once and make your argument refute them.

Same requirements as 1st aff otherwise.

Mid round: Must have refutation, must present arguments that interact with the round. This is where you need to offer new perspectives because this is in the round when it gets boring.

Late/Crystals: The biggest part of your speech should be on weighing. Pretty hard to do in congress with so many arguments present. But focus on the opponent's best arguments. It is also fine to add new info as long as it hurts the opponent's efforts.

PO paradigm: Regular ranks for PO is 1-6, however, I will rank PO's 2-5. Unless the round has no clear winner, then I am fine voting PO as 1st. Only if you're a very good po bc po already op.

1. Most important: Move the round efficiently

- do things quickly

- know procedures

Prelims:

10% legislating

- Motions, Point of orders, etc

60% argument

- Just how good your argument is

30% rhetoric

- Good intros

- good rhetoric that ties in with your argument

- pauses, gestures

Quarters/Semis/Finals

- 70% argument

- 30% rhetoric

Ahoy!

I'm Andy Choy from Lovejoy High School in Texas. Contrary to its etymology, Lovejoy has no love, no joy, and is barely a high school, but debate keeps me alive.

There are a couple of things you should not do in round.

• Being derogatory or blatantly abusive will earn you a drop/loss and 0 speaker points.
• If you have any safety concerns, please feel free to inform me.
• Providing 0 reliable evidence will likely earn you a drop/loss and 0 speaker points.
• Debates should typically be topical. If your speech is 3 contextless minutes of Dhar Mann videos, you should reprep your speech.

"Good luck. Don't suck." - Mr. Cosio

Congressional

Argumentation

• A concise thesis statement outlining your argumentation is nice.
• Warrant your claims. Tell me why your claims hold true.
• "An assumption is an assumption because the assumption doesn't have evidence. That's why it's an assumption!" - Tommy Nichol
• Evidence citations should include organisation and date. Credibility matters, so please include author name, author credentials, and exact date if possible.
• Speeches should build on the existing debate. If yours does not, adapt it! There is always something to contribute.
• The way you structure your speech does not matter to me. How convincing your argumentation is does.
• You need not confine your speech to the constructive, rebuttal, and crystal categories.
• If you weigh well, expect me to rank well.

Rhetoric

• Stealing rhetoric from other debaters = you're throwing.
• Do not glue your face to your speechpad, practically or literally, for your entire speech.
• Deliver AGDs relatable to the topic.
• If you use cliché chess rhetoric, see my reaction as I drop you.
• If you say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," I hope you know the road to a low rank is paved with poor rhetoric.

Questioning

• I highly regard questioning because it is the only time you can immediately defend your argumentation against refutations.
• Question amount < question constructiveness, do not question to affirm your own side.
• If your "question" is not a question, your rank is not a 1.

Notes

• I award 2 or higher speech points as long as your speech is not abusive.
• Congressional debate =/= congressional politicking.

Public Forum

Email for the chain (but not for the spam): andyc30503@gmail.com

• Tech > Truth, but I cannot vote for argumentation I do not understand.
• I am a flay judge.
• Please disclose.
• I usually have enough topic knowledge, but please do not assume I know everything.
• Speed is acceptable, but do not spread. I will let you know if you are speaking too rapidly.
• Clash with your opponent's case is expected during rebuttal, summary, and final focus.
• Passionate delivery is rare in PF, so a little passion is appreciated.

+0.5 speaks for taking notes during the RFD

+0.5 speaks if you play a national anthem before round I fail to identify

Hi!! My name is Elizabeth Falcone, I am a senior at Lincoln Southwest High School in Lincoln, Nebraska and have debated congressionally for the past 4 years.

Congress:

• have some decorum! it's important to follow PO rules &https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf
• Present: Clearly, loudly, & respectfully
• Debate: Respond to arguments made in the round & don't rehash (repeat the points or evidence of another without adding to the debate in some significant way)
• Involvement: Ask questions whenever you can of other debaters, make motions, & flow the round
• have a golly good time & be nice to each other

• sources should have a year & author's last name (at minimum) and should not have the month or day (unless you can justify it's inclusion via relevance)
• PO's: I will rank you, make sure you are running an efficient and equitable chamber. I will likely be keeping track of presidency and recency as well to keep things in check.

Congress kid-turned-judge, be warned:

Don't lie, you know that Congress is a speech event as much as it is a debate event. If you win on flow but your delivery and rhetoric are bad, you'll fall down my ballot. If you are the best orator I've ever seen but your arguments have no weight, then you'll fall down my ballot. Good debaters do both!

Every Congress kid complains that people can't take risks in rounds. Do it. If it's corny or ingenuine then you'll probably get dropped, but take an effective and strategic risk in round and I might vote on it.

I wrote this in 10 minutes so it's not that deep, just don't be bad, be the best, and you'll probably win.

Experience:
I have around 1 year of experience judging Congressional Debate rounds.

Speed:
Clarity is more important than how fast you speak. Speak at a pace where your arguments remain clear, compelling, and easy to follow.

Style:
I value clear communication and arguments that are backed by solid examples and accurate data. Make sure your logic is sound and your evidence is specific and well-sourced. Organization and focus matter—keep your speeches structured and easy to flow.

What Wins My Ballot:
I’m looking for speeches with strong structure, impactful arguments, and clear weighing. Demonstrating a solid value framework with direct impact comparison goes a long way. I also pay close attention to eye contact—maintain engagement not just with judges, but also with your fellow debaters. It shows poise and confidence in your advocacy.

Pro Tip:
Tell me why your impacts matter more than others. Use clear data, real-world examples, and thoughtful analysis to elevate your arguments. Signpost your structure well, and make sure to extend your key points throughout the debate.

As far as argumentation goes I like a good balance between technical legislation attacks and plan implementation arguments. I would consider the circuit I come from more traditional. Meaning I look for quality over quantity. Remember congress is a game of standing out give me niche arguments. I don ´ t like generic points, to me they show a lack of understanding and skill. Same goes for Cross examination don ´ t just ask a question to ask a question make sure it's intentional I want to see you utilize the info into speeches. Furthermore, speaking skills and speech content are weighed with equal importance, give me balance. Respect is very important to me. Additionally, I will not condone interruption or plain pettiness towards each other especially your presiding officer. It ´ s also important to make movements especially hand gestures helpful not hindering. Keep a good moderate tone no unnecessary shouting but I still want to hear you clearly. As far as motions and voting go make your movements and decisions clear to everyone, especially the PO. Finally, I personally like to see well done amendments. But most importantly I want everyone to be proud of themselves for making it this far and have fun.

'ello mates!You are now viewing the paradigm of Andrew King!

General Notes

• I tend to keep this section of my paradigm updated frequently, and it is subject to change
• If you’re in any round of debate: don’t act like you rule the world and that you don’t think this isn’t some kind of game that we all want to win.
• Don’t be a bum. (Kinda goes with point 2)
• I will rank you lower if you are unprofessional in round. This goes both ways: trying to be funny and causing distractions or thinking so highly of yourself you talk down to your opponents.

Congressional Debate

If you are in one of my congressional debate rounds, I judge based on the reliability of your sources (e.x. is it from an academic source or is it cited based off of quora?) but not the amount of your sources. If you can prove through common sense that your opposition's point does not stand, I will rank you higher. But! your "common sense" should be reliable and not have any holes in it.

If you are a P.O. in my round, do not expect to automatically be ranked top 6. Prove to me that you are competent at your job and you can handle anything the chamber throws at you and you will be ranked higher. Fail to do so and slow down the chamber due to numerous and repeated mistakes, I will rank you lower. TL;DR, know what you're doing before you P.O!

In questioning, I want to see that you know every in and out detail regarding your case. You should answer all questions confidently and avoid shouting over / cutting other people off. If you do so repeatedly, I will rank you lower. Everyone in the chamber deserves a voice and nobody comes off as a strong leader (or congressperson) if debate devolves into a screaming match.

I know it seems like I've said you have to be perfect to rank higher and, while it certainly helps, most people aren't perfect. However, by remaining confident, calm, and collected you can ensure that you gain high speaks and a high ranking from me!

As for myself, I have debated both locally and nationally in the past two years. I have attended Glenbrooks, Dowling, NSDA Nationals 2024, Wisconsin State and a whole host of other congress tournaments that I probably shouldn't get into on this paradigm.

Lincoln Douglass

Pray.

TL;DR

If you have gotten nothing from my paradigm read the following!

Remain confident, calm, and collected, and I will rank you high.

I'm Andrew King and that's the bottom line, cuz' the King said so!

Congressional Debate Paradigm

Hello! My name is Matthew Klacik, and I am a judge in Congressional Debate. I was a competitor for 4-years, in addition to doing US Extemp for 2-years, and International Extemp for 1. I was a 4-year state qualifier, in addition to being a National Senate qualifier, ranking in the Top 100 in the nation (Top 0.1%). My Junior and Senior year I was ranked #1 in the District, and my Senior year I took 1st Place and Best PO at every in-season tournament.

In addition to my double major, I am minoring in Political Science with a focus in Constitutional Law. My experience in Congressional Debate along with my studies help to ensure I am well-qualified to be a judge for you.

If you have any questions don’t hesitate to come ask! I will be more than happy to answer any questions!

Evaluation Criteria

1. Presentation

1. Delivery effectiveness

2. Tone and volume variation

3. Use of meaningful movement and gestures

2. Sources

1. Effective incorporation of reliable sources

2. Proper quoting of sources

3. Construction

1. Easy to follow

2. Well organized

3. Evident understanding of legislation

4. Defense & Support

1. Effective defense of speech content during questioning

2. Effective support of speech content during questioning

3. Further development of content during questioning

Speech Scoring Guidelines

1. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

2. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

3. Casual presentation, minimal sources, ineffective support

4. Casual presentation, minimal sources, generally effective support

5. Professional presentation, reasonable sources, effective support

6. Professional presentation, exceptional sources, effective support

Presiding Officer Scoring Guidelines

1. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

2. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

3. Lacked professionalism and understanding of procedure, and failed to maintain efficiency

4. Casual nature, minimal understanding of procedure, generally inefficient

5. Professional nature, good understanding of procedure, fairly efficient

6. Professional, nature, excellent understanding of procedure, highly efficient

*Note: These are general guidelines to better interpret your score in addition to provided written feedback. These guidelines may not accurately represent the reason for the score provided.

Ranking Criteria

1. Overall Performance

1. Overall effectiveness of speeches

2. Overall effectiveness of questions

2. Overall Speaking Quality

1. Average quality of speeches

2. Average quality of presented arguments

3. Overall Participation

1. Attempts to Speak

2. Attempts to Question

3. Attempts to Motion

4. Overall Leadership (Tie-Breaker)

1. Attempts to lead the chamber in a desired direction

Presiding Officer

1. Overall Performance

1. Overall effectiveness of leading the Chamber

2. Overall Participation

1. Overall ability to manage the round without error

3. Overall Speaking Quality

1. Overall maintenance of procedure and decorum standards

Congress

The main things I look for during Congress is:

Speeches and Answering Questions:
Basic Speaking Skills (Eye Contact, Hand Gestures, Vocal Inflections, ect.)
Is the speech original and or creative? (AGDs!)
Is the speech relevant to the round? (Clash, Adding On, ect)
Is evidence sources from reputable and recent sources?
Is the response concise and relevant?
Is the response effective at defending your stance/argument?

Asking Questions:
Is the question relevant to the speech?
Do your questions add substance to the debate?

Chairing:
I tend to rank a good chair favorably, as the chamber would not function, much less efficiently, without a good chair.
Is precedence properly and efficiently followed?
Is the house run fairly, efficiently, and effectively?
Are members of the chamber properly reigned in? (speech time, questioning time, ect)
Is a clear knowledge of parliamentary procedure demonstrated?

For Congress: One of the most important things is control of the room. In my opinion, this is what Congress is all about. People who carry themselves with such confidence as if they're the best in the room often are. This should be showcased in both your speeches and questions. Speeches ought to command attention. If you discuss something because it's urgent, let the room feel just how urgent it is. Different tones depend on the person and speaking style, but it's nice for people to have a distinct tone/speaking style throughout the match. I appreciate something unique, whether a line or an action. These create memorability, which is important in Congress. Of course, coherent argumentation throughout is expected, but equally important to that is presentation. Good rebuttals and crystallizations also impress me. Speakers shouldn't treat all their speeches as if they're first speeches, especially if what they want to say what was already said. Every speech given being prewritten is a bad look, and should be balanced out with rebuttal and crystallization to show-well roundedness in congressional ability and set you apart as a superior speaker.

For PF/LD/Extemp: A good crystallization goes a long way. If you think there's a reason you won the debate, don't merely mention it, emphasize its importance to me. Knowing exactly how to balance arguments you want to continually push with constant rebuttal in a way where everything gets time proportional to how much it deserves makes a speech.

I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for about 6 years.

PARLI
I am often selected as a parliamentarian for prelim rounds. As a parliamentarian, these are my top issues:

- Adjust to the flow of the debate. You may give me a fantastic speech, but if it has nothing to do with what others have said in the debate, I cannot rank it high. I love dynamic rounds where a lot of things are happening and everyone adapts quickly to the round.

- Similarly, I love dynamic cross-ex. I want to hear a lot of questions and answers. Don’t ramble on. Don’t yell over each other. It’s okay to interrupt if someone is going on too long, but don’t scream. If someone is talking over you incessantly, don’t escalate — they already look bad and it’s a win for you. At least in my book.

- As a parli, I love a chamber that can run itself. Help each other out! In this event, you have to collaborate with each other to compete against each other. If you sabotage each other or get in each others’ ways, that will always reflect on the quality of the round. I reward constructive and productive leaders in the round. That being said, don’t try to domineer the “politics" of the chamber.

- As a parli, I don’t give detailed feedback for each individual speech. I try to give you actionable advice based on what I see across all the rounds. I will use your speeches as examples.

PRESENTATION

- I pay a lot of attention to delivery and presentation.

- Good delivery is necessary to get your point across! I don’t judge it on a rubric. It’s just a critical component of actually communicating your argument. Often, competitors make unique or nuanced arguments — I absolutely do appreciate it, but you have to work extra hard to communicate that argument clearly to your judges.

- iPads are OK. If they hurt your presentation, I’ll mark you down for poor presentation. If they don’t, no problem.

- No laptops. You won’t get a rank from me if you speak off a laptop.

CONTENT

- I like structured speeches. I’m just a parent judge. Don’t lead me along a wild goose chase. If you have some kind of round-winning impact at the end of your speech, I want you to preface it at the beginning before you jump right into the content.

- All speeches in a round are equally important, from the sponsorship to the last in a round. You can win my 1 speaking from any point in the round. For example, if an early speech is essential to the round, I will reward it more than a later speech even if it does have more refutation/adaptation etc.

- Late round speakers who are repeating or rehashing arguments don’t get ranked well.

- I don’t like short speeches. 3 minutes is already so little time to engage in a debate that is 90-120 minutes long. Use your time and use it well! I consider anything under 2:30 a short speech and will probably mark it on your feedback.

PRESIDING OFFICERS

- Please please please elect someone who knows how to do their job. I’ve seen people who are perfectly capable of POing pressure someone who has no idea what they are doing into POing, and then the chamber is awful for the next two hours. Don’t do that to me.

- Don’t “backseat PO.” Yes, correct the PO for substantive mistakes like precedence/recency slip-ups, but don’t be a smartass. Don’t get in the way of chamber business. Correcting technicalities will slow us down and that can often deny people a chance to speak.

- POs have to be assertive and play at least some kind of role in leading the chamber.

- A good PO will always get a breaking rank from me.

Have fun! Don’t take yourself *too* seriously.

Hello, my name is Muideen Popoola. I am a debater and public speaker.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating which includes British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do. Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

In conclusion, I prioritize clarity, logic, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas, engage with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, rather than personal beliefs or biases. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and grow as critical thinkers.

Conflict: I don't have any.

Contact: muideenpopoola1010@gmail.com

Cheers!

Lax parent judge don’t use overly techy language that I won’t understand. I did LD and extemp in High school.

Hi, I'm Emilia! I graduated from Phoenix Country Day School in 2024 and have been involved in Speech & Debate since 2017.

Congress: Be confident. I focus more on analysis when judging online competition; there's not much room to judge speaking quality. Know where your speech belongs in the round. I reward POs and will generally rank them within breaks, barring major issues. I also reward entertaining speakers, be funny.

If you have any questions don't hesitate to email me at emiliasafirdebates@gmail.com

give good speeches that make sense and you’ll be fine. i probably care more about arguments than other judges but also don’t just be monotone your entire speech. also don’t rehash or give half-baked impacts, hate that. if you have a lot of ref then that’s cool and i like that (as long as the ref is towards something that’s important to the debate don’t just ref arguments that are low-hanging fruit you only have so much time)
also if you’re a po and you don’t make any mistakes then you’ll do good

I am a third year parent volunteer judge of Congressional Debate and Public Forum, representing American Heritage School in Delray, Florida. I have judged Congressional Debate at PBMSFL and upcoming Nationals in 2024, at TOC and Nationals in 2023 and Public Forum online in 2022. 2023 is my first Nationals judging.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

The first affirmative author should clearly and confidently outline the legislation and set the standard for the round. The first con speaker should be equally confident to present a counter-argument. A variety of clearly articulated pieces of evidence and quantitative and factual citations are always preferred to any vague, theoretical and qualitative statements. After the first two speeches, I look for additional evidence that augments the argument or a counter argument instead of re-stating previous arguments. Citing previous debaters and building on their key arguments adds value and shows that the speaker is alert and comprehends the legislation on a deeper level.

Ability to ask targeted questions is important. Quality of the question matters. Similarly, ability to carry the debate, answer concisely an to the question at hand and refer to the previous facts and metrics during the response is very important. In fact, this is the most important factor for me in judging the debator. When the Q&A time runs out, it usually becomes clear who held an advantage in that argument. Concise arguments win.

Presentation style matters also but to a lesser degree. It is finding that balance of being confident and assertive, yet not going overboard with screaming or trying too hard. Measured, confident delivery wins. Timing the speech close to the alloted time limit is a plus. Significantly short or a run-on speech is a negative.

Professional conduct and respect to other debaters and judges at all times is paramount. Ethics and values is table stakes. Else, you are out.

For a PO, I look for the ability to maintain order. The PO is in control of the Congress session. Show it. Run it and ensure that the rules are enforced at all times. Whiteboarding of debate topics and order of aft and con presenters for each legislation topic throughout the session helps.

I do not shake hands with presenters but try to maintain a positive, encouraging tone. Equal treatment to all participants.

Throughout each round, I maintain the count of key arguments, Q&A encounters, etc for each debator. At the end of each round, ranking becomes obvious based on the body of data gathered throughout the round for each participant. I usually make a fast ranking decision without major hesitations.

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literal selection

- Good characterization

- Projection

Affiliation: Jackson-Reed High School (DC- 2015-2020), Alice Deal Middle School (2012-Present)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Former College NDT debater: Around the time that your parents were coming into existence.

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 30+ years at the high school and middle school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals and a variety of other forums. I am a tabula rasa judge up until the point that the advocacy becomes unrealistic. Quite honestly, when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round, I am far less inclined to vote in a debater/team's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD /Policy. if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow. Generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy is to be disrespectful of the educational value of the activity in word or deed please change your tactics. I prefer to vote for the realistic rather than the absurdist post-modern ramblings of a 'philosopher' that no one other than obscure academics that the rambler works with understand. Simple rule: If you can't explain the depth of a philosophy in two coherent sentences then save it for when you debate in college.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, a plan that is far more than a throw-away reiteration of the resolution. Instead, show all of those attending the round that you've thought and delved deep enough into the resolution to propose a viable change to the staus quo.

In LD/PF let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link or purpose will not only cause a raised eyebrow, but it will require far more work on your part to win my ballot. suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters. See comment regarding preposterous philosophy ramblings above.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain claims, warrants, and impacts and link back to the framework offered at the top of the round in order to provide a well-researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point out the fallacies of such arguments, they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Hey! I'm Aamvi, I'm currently a college freshman, and I competed in Congressional Debate in NJ and on the National Circuit for almost 4 years.

For Congress:

• I value presentationslightly more than content (as long as what you're saying makes sense, aka, your analysis/warranting is good), but that's only if your speech is well-written and relevant with reputable sources: I won't hesitate to fact check you if something sounds questionable. In other words: if two competitors have similar content value in their speeches, the one with better presentation will be ranked higher :)!
• Please adapt your speeches depending on where we are in the round. An authorship speech should not be given towards the end of debate, nor should a refutation be given as the first negation speech. BUT I love crystals
• I hate extended questioning just for the same question to be asked 100x. If you guys move to extend- have a good reason.

POs:

• You guys start around a 3 on my ballot, and depending on how the round goes you'll go up or down accordingly. As long as you're efficient andmostly accurate (mistakes happen, just don't let them mess you up for the rest of the session), you will 100% be ranked on my ballot.
• HOWEVER, if I notice any disrespectful behavior (ex: laughing at speakers, intentionally dropping a certain speaker/school, etc) that is an immediate drop.

Most importantly have fun, and be respectful to each other! I judge mostly Speech and Congress, so for any debate event (PF/LD/etc.), treat me as a lay judge! But like I mentioned above: please please be courteous to one another. Condescention/disrespect for your fellow competitors is an immediate drop no matter what you are competing in.

I will be looking for the following while judging Congressional Debaters:

1) Do you speak confidently, clearly, and slowly while presenting?

2) Are you backing up statements with accurate, precise, and verifiable data specific to your cause?

3) Are you professional, show respect to competitors, and listen attentively to appropriately respond?

I will be judging the Presiding Officer on how well they manage the congressional session.

I care more about the clarity and organization of your arguments and want to see how impactful they are through the flow. I prefer your arguments to be straightforward to reflect your points. Use your body languages appropriately will definitely be a plus. Don't be nervous and just enjoy your debate!