Hello!

My name is Annika Abraham, I am a sophomore in high school and I have been doing LD Debate for the past two years.

I am comfortable with debate language and most speeds, however, if you choose to speak fast I would really appreciate it if you could email your case to annikajabraham@gmail.com. Your speaker points will reflect how easy it was to understand your case and this does include the way the speeches were performed so please keep that in mind should you choose to speak fast.

Please signpost, it makes it much easier to understand the debate and I am more likely to clearly understand your arguments and your rebuttals if you tell me exactly which arguments you're responding to. I don't mind grouping as long as you clearly outline which arguments you're grouping so I can mark that on my flow.

I do not count emailing/sending evidence as part of prep time.

Weighing is so important to me and I love impact calculus, telling me exactly why you should win the round or why your arguments outweigh is your final opportunity to highlight why you deserve the win.

If you have any questions after the round, please feel free to reach me at my email that is listed above!

At the end of the day, please be respectful and please have fun! Good luck!

Intro:

**Edit 12/5 for Rhetoric Policy Tournament: grading will obviously be a lot easier since this counts for a school grade. You should still strive to achieve everything I've outlined in the paradigm, but also focus on what you've learned in Rhetoric, as this debate day also attempts to assess your skills from that class. I don't know Policy that well (Congress is better though) but I've outlined a simple rubric and some basic pointers to help you get a good grade. NO SPREADING

Hello! I'm currently a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory, located in San Jose, California. I have four years of experience in Congressional Debate and Impromptu speaking (and competed in Middle School SPAR debate for two years), so you will likely be reading this because I am judging your round in one of these events. In middle school, I've been among the state finalists for Congress multiple times, as well as winning a Bronze Medal in Congress at the 2021 Nationals, along with other achievements. I also have recently picked up Extemporaneous speaking, so I can judge that as well. Overall, if you have me as a judge in any round, a summary of the entire paradigm is the following: Make your points matter to me, whether it's a unique argument, showing emotion in speeches, or weighing arguments perfectly in the last speech of the round. I use rubrics and score each speaker out of 100 points on their ballot, as a tool to make it easier for me to rank everyone.

Policy Rubric:

See my paradigm below for more information. I don't do Policy so I'll go much easier on grading; this rubric just assesses if you can make strong, impactful arguments, and can apply what you learned in Rhetoric.Winners earn 3 extra points each.DO NOT SPREAD OR DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO FAST/CIRCUIT DEBATE.

Overall Constructive (6 pts)

Overall Rebuttal (6 pts)

Cross-Examination: Attack (3 pts)

Cross-Examination: Defense (3 pts)

Logic/Argumentative Skills (6 pts)

Vocal Delivery (3 pts)

Physical Delivery (3 pts)

Impromptu Rubric:

See my paradigm below for more information.

Intro (10 pts)

Thesis Clarity (10 pts)

Overall Evidence/Examples (15 pts)

Example Analysis (15 pts)

Gestures/Body Language (10 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (10 pts)

Fluency (5 pts)

Modulation (10 pts)

Tone (10 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

SPAR Rubric:

Everything in this rubric is affected by your ability to disprove the opposition as well. You should be able to bring up evidence that directly counters your opponent's points and make sure you listen to your opponent and flow. Use prep time efficiently.

Intro (10 pts)

Thesis (10 pts)

Examples (10 pts)

Analysis (10 pts)

Crossfire (10 pts)

Refutations (10 pts)

Gestures/Posture (10 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (10 pts)

Fluency (5 pts)

Emotion (10 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

Extemp Rubric:

See the info below in the Extemp section for what you need to do. This is one of the few events where I think content and delivery have equal value.

Intro/Background/Context (10 pts)

Thesis (10 pts)

Point 1 (10 pts)

Point 2 (10 pts)

Point 3 (10 pts)

Memorization/Credibility/Fluency (10 pts)

Posture/Body Language/Confidence (5 pts)

Hand Gestures (5 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (5 pts)

Volume (5 pts)

Articulation (how clear you sound) (5 pts)

Tonal Variation (5 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

Humor/Energy (5 pts)

Congress Rubric:

See below paradigm for what to do well. For the scores here, since most rounds have 2 speeches, I'll give you a score on each bill (half the round) out of 50 points, and add them for your final score. If the round is only on one bill, or for whatever reason you only give one speech, you'll just get your grade out of 50 made into 100. This paradigm is for all senators, if you are a PO, then you'll start with a 100%, and then for every thing I think you could have done better (or mistake you make), I'll ding you by a certain amount of points and mark it on your ballot. A flawless PO will get a perfect score.

Argument Clarity (5 pts)

Argument Importance (5 pts)

Argument Evidence/Analysis (5 pts)

Activeness In Round (5 pts)

CX Question Quality (5 pts)

In-Speech Refutations/CX Defense (5 pts)

Rhetoric (5 pts)

Presence/Fluency (5 pts)

Physical Delivery (5 pts)

Vocal Delivery (5 pts)

Policy:

• To start, I have only competed in Policy during Rhetoric, and regularly compete in Congress, as you would have noticed by now.
• As I said earlier, DO NOT do anything remotely related to fast or circuit debate. I will not give examples; I'm sure Mr. Langerman would have warned you against them, and if you are in doubt about doing something, it's probably best not to do it. In short, this is not a round to see who can speak the fastest, who has better arguments, or who won the stock issue of solvency: I want to see your ability to make and respond to impactful arguments that demonstrate your understanding of the concepts in Rhetoric.This means you should read at a slow, speech-level pace, not overcomplicate your case, and make your points clear. Treat me like a parent judge, because in a majority of cases, they will judge you.
• The best way to score well is to do exactly what has been outlined for you in Rhetoric. You need to mix both the Rhetoric skills and generally strong content/delivery in order to win over a parent.
• Everything I've said about content and delivery is equally important here as it is in other events.
• Regardless of whether you are 1A, 2A, 1N, or 2N, I assess your constructive and rebuttal speeches holistically. These speeches require a clear structure with good evidence, tags, and analysis. Your speech should also be relevant to the content of the round - and clearly make an impact for your side. If your speech does not attempt to change the complexion of the round for your side in some way, it won't appeal to a parent judge, and you'll 1) lose the debate and 2) make the round incredibly boring and lopsided.
• Remember to impact every single part of your speech. You cannot simply give me a statistic and move on in the 1AC, or reference a card in the 2NR without explaining its importance. What does this statistic change for people? You also cannot only say that an impact occurs; make me care. What's the relevance of that impact to the round?
• How I assess your argumentation depends solely on one question: Were you logical? Just like a real speech, link each statistic to a powerful WARRANT that is backed up with EVIDENCE. While the power of your impact and ability to tie arguments to the round will be assessed in the speech scores, your argumentation needs an explanation for each topic. HOW would a Federal Jobs guarantee be implemented? Don't just stop there; does the United States have what it takes to implement FJG? And then you can proceed to impacts. No impact exists without a proper warrant.
• For cross-examination, I've split the rubric into your Offense and Defense. Remember to follow every aspect of cross-examination taught in Rhetoric; Mr. Langerman made you participate in numerous CX drills for a reason. At the end of the day, Policy is Cross-Examination (CX) Debate, so you need to focus on disproving your opponent here. Make offensive attacks on what they say when you are the cross-examiner. When you are defending your claims, don't defend yourself against what your opponent says; attack by explaining the genuine benefits your side brings. Also, add passion and prove through this cross-examination that your points matter, but don't let this turn into the British House of Lords. Please.
• Delivery in Policy may seem completely irrelevant; but it still matters, even beyond just speaking slowly. Having charisma and strong presentational skills help you captivate anyone you talk to. Delivery is a life skill.
• I will give 2 extra speaker points to the winners of the debate. Your grade and your record are entirely separate from each other - grades reflect your application of Rhetoric and record reflects your ability to win the debate, but I wanted to emphasize that winning does matter and reward the best debaters in the room.
• One last thing: I genuinely love Speech and Debate and am incredibly excited to judge all of you, but Speech and Debate is a tiring activity for both judges and competitors. You should be enjoying the debate and helping everyone around you enjoy it as well. Demonstrate energy and passion for what you speak about, and the rest will come to you naturally.

Impromptu/SPAR:

• I prefer quality over quantity. You don't need three examples if you can't come up with them. However, you should be able to give well-developed and logical examples that make sense.
• I don't believe in any of the technical elements of these events. You don't need to give a word-for-word refutation of everything your opponent says (for SPAR) or claim that what your opponent says is false, you should instead focus on why your argument is true and why it matters. Being logical and clear is most important in your content, and be sure to explain the negative impacts of your opponent's point.
• Regardless of whether I'm judging you in Impromptu or SPAR, make sure that you spend the majority of your examples impacting. I don't need to know the concrete effects of your examples, because I can probably figure them out myself. You should sum up your effects in 2-3 sentences and spend the rest of your example linking it to impacts, and explaining HOW this proves your thesis. Every time you make a statement, ask yourself WHY because I will be doing the same thing on my ballot. Whoever can prove their impact best has the best content.
• Delivery is the most important aspect of a speech. I need good tonal variation and consistent modulation, as well as some emotion and passion in your delivery. If you can't make me feel this matters with your delivery, I don't care how good your content is, but I promise you you won't get a very good rank. I prefer a person who has great delivery and slow-paced, decent analysis over a person with several examples and perfect points. With that said, theatrics are unnecessary; you should really believe in what you are arguing for and use that emotion as you deem necessary.
• The most important value to me is humanity. Discussing more emotional and powerful topics where you can save suffering people and help them should be the goal of everyone in our world, and make sure you can connect your impacts to this.
• Be respectful to your opponent at all times for SPAR.

Extemp:

• Having seven sources and three examples is important. Slow down so that I can hear the cite. With that said, your cites should be concise and never really need to offer more than 3 major statistics. Analysis is much more important than your sources.
• be clear in your thesis, use an UMBRELLA THESIS (a reason your thesis is overall true that connects all of your points, like "Russia has been losing the war to Ukraine because they haven't got resources in 3 key areas") to streamline your points together. Theses without an attempt at an umbrella will receive 5/10 or below.
• Like how I said for IMP and SPAR, make sure you ask WHY your points are valid, and HOW it matters. You need to be able to link everything for your analysis. Make sure you still give concrete impacts and then explain why the impacts matter. If you say doing something will create lots of jobs and give more money to working-class Americans, explain WHY giving this money to working-class Americans proves your thesis, and why that is a fundamentally good thing.
• Humor is not extremely necessary. If you can't come up with an actually good joke, don't use it. Don't use any of the common jokes that regularly circulate for Extemp, I will mark you down for that because that's just boring. If you have a great joke, then I strongly advise you to use it. Just be original.
• Again, delivery is the most important part of this event. Speak slowly, be understandable, and still carry emotion where necessary. Extemp can be a very dry event, so make sure you keep me engaged.
• I have more topic knowledge than most parent judges and read over 5 news articles per day, so make sure what you are saying is factually true. I won't buy a stat unless you explain why it's true. Also, use reputable news sites like Reuters, the NY Times, NBC, Yahoo, The Atlantic, NOT Fox News OR their opinion page, The Hill, Washington Post, etc. I'll give you bonus credit for using The Guardian. Small news sites are okay and encouraged, as long as their content is really relevant. In fact, using smaller sites proves to me that you're going beyond the most obvious or mainstream news and going more in depth with your research. If you use an extremely non-reputable source, points will be deducted.
• Memorization is not that important. Make sure you can go through the whole speech fluently, but if you slightly mess up the date (I don't care if your dates are exact), I won't dock you. I understand (and sometimes in my own speeches do this) that some people might accidentally switch around the order of their cites, which is still bad, but won't count against you.

Congress:

• This is the event I am probably best at and have competed in for the longest.
• I'll start with my PO paradigm. The PO should be energetic more than anything else. You can make jokes if you feel it's necessary, sometimes even make subtle comments on what's going on in the round, and demonstrate exemplary knowledge of Congressional procedure. In general, be a good speaker and have confidence. Don't make too many major mistakes, but if you make a mistake, don't hesitate to apologize for it and move on with the round. The show must go on at all times.
• Keep in mind everything I said about content and delivery for the other events. They all matter here.
• Make sure to make good eye contact; don't just read from your pad.
• You should ideally fill in all of your speaking time (between 3 mins and 3 mins 15 seconds). I don't mind if you get cut off in the middle of your conclusion, but get everything you want to say for your main points done in under 3 minutes.
• Be active in cross-examination. I will give higher ranks to those who ask the best questions, and also those who ask the most. You should be active throughout the round, and if you can dominate the round by smoking people during CX and using it to prove your points, you will easily finish in the top three just because of this. With all of this said, please be respectful.
• You can use some original rhetoric pieces if you would like, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT copy rhetoric from other people around you. There are some rhetoric pieces I have heard over twenty times from several different people, but if your rhetoric is not original, it's not hard-hitting, and won't help your case. Honestly, rhetoric does not matter very much if you have a solid vocabulary and have an emotional impact.
• Keep your statistics as short as you can. I prefer your actual summary of a statistic rather than a drawn-out quotation from the author. Impact evidence and put it in the context of the round. I never assume links.
• Demonstrating strong topic knowledge is very helpful to you, and as a person who uses that himself when competing, I think it will help your ballot too.
• Having good arguments and saying what you believe in is more important than winning the round. Phrases like "my entire side has completely flawed arguments, so let me save them..." come off as arrogant and hurt your team's case, unless your entire side strongly disagrees with you. I would prefer wording like "here's the statistic that closes the book on this round..." or "Senator Bob did a great job proving ____ in his speech. Allow me to advance his points by saying why they matter..."
  

Good luck! Contact me at vivaan.chopra26@bcp.org or vivaan.chopra@gmail.com if you have any questions regarding your ballot. Most importantly, HAVE FUN; you shouldn't be here if you don't love these events!

Hi, I'm Ying.

I would like to ensure fun and fair tournament, so therefore, I would like to request everyone to speak at a reasonable pace to allow comments and ranking decisions to be easier to be made, and I would also like for everyone to be respectful of their opponents. One thing that I will mark points off for will be rehash, as it is preferable for later speakers to add new ideas to the debate, rather than just rephrase what previous speakers have already said. Please be reasonable with your speeches and keep in mind of other parts of practical debate.

Thank you, and good luck!

Last updated 2/12/24

As a judge, I view competitive academic debate as an educational rhetoric game. I want you to have the debate you want to have; I try not to intervene if your debate meets two *principles:

1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my personal interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to reconciling interpretations, but I'd rather do it prior to the first speech. I am less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” I believe maintaining stable competitive parameters is necessary to maintain fairness.

2. I deeply value access to speech and debate. By default, I will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask. I'm happy to chat about it.

* While these personal value principles are strongly-held, unless a "violation" seems especially egregious - and in the absence of in-round articulation - I'll be reluctant to intervene. Again, I want you to have the debate you want to have.

My preferences:

I like strong logic. I like it when debaters are considerate of one another and bring good will. I love good humor. I love creative, nuanced, and uncommon arguments.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:
I see speaker points as an opportunity to reward individual oration. Things I value: strong verbal and nonverbal performance, audience/judge adaptation, round vision, and clarity & consistency of structure, content, and presentation.

My limitations:
I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of middle school, high school, and college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I have some difficulty flowing and comprehending top-speed arguments. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or simply ask. Spread at your own risk. If you’ve been doing Policy debate since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Run what you want, but bring me with you. Don't assume I'm deep in the lit.

Rebuttals:
I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new; If an argument is brand new and the opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to the argument, I will not consider the argument in my decision. If it's Parli, call the point of order.

Speech-y Debate Events (ie SPAR and IPDA):
While the guidelines above apply to my approach to SPAR and IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll take the role of more of a lay audience member and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate. I will still flow the debate.

Discretionary information about me:I'm a night owl. I love vintage motorcycles and guitar amps, karaoke, Mario Kart 64, waterfalls, and podcasts. I've been sorted into House Slytherin.

My name is Felix Fey and I am a 9th-grade student from California. I have four years of speech and debate experience, which I primarily have spent doing Congressional Debate. For Congress, I judge primarily based on three things: 1.) How well you speak. Confidence, diction, and speech flow are all factors that will affect my rankings. 2.) How good the content of your speech is. Your speech should have well-structured arguments backed up with data and analysis. Tell me why your statistics matter. 3.) How well geared to the part of the round is. If we are near the beginning of the round, I want to mostly hear new arguments. As we reach the end, you should be interacting with others' speeches and not adding new arguments.

Hi! My name is Margareta Iancu and I am a current competitor based out of California. Humorous interpretation is my main event where I have been a finalist at the Cal Berkley National Invitational, finalist at the MLK National Invitational, attended CHSSA State Championship twice most recently taking 13th overall, attended Glenbrooks National Invitational, and attended the Tournament of Champions in Lexington. My secondary event is Congressional Debate but I pref prepped speech.

As a judge I appreciate when competitors show their personality through their arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a joke or poke fun at social situations as long as it remains respectful. I don't appreciate when competitors overcomplicate their points with obscure evidence or distantly-related examples. Don't over-expand your points just to fill time. I would rather have a short, concise speech than a speech that takes up more the allotted time. Make sure the points you are making flow with the round and explain why they are relevant. During cross-ex, don't ask leading questions. Ask your competitors questions about their speech or things that happened during round. I won't regret ballot dropping if you evidence dump on your competitors during cross. Take the round seriously but don't forget that your competitors are not your enemy. Disrespecting anyone during round for being overly aggressive will result in ballot drops. Don't forget to have fun and make the most of this opportunity. Congratulations on making it this far.

LD:

I'm fine with any argument you run(but try to make it connect back to the topic SOMEHOW so I know how to evaluate it)
I'm also fine with any speed, just make sure your opponent can understand you as well.
Find with K's, T's, CP's, go for whatever.

PF:

Do whatever you want to, Im fine with basically any argument or any speed you chose to speak at. If you are running a policy case, try to make it relate to the topic somehow.

Speech:

I don't know that much about speech, however I will try to judge based on the knowledge I have. Again, I am open to anything.

All Other Events(Applies to every event):

Do whatever you want and have fun. If you are running something that is off-topical to whatever you are debating, please try to explain it well for me so I can judge it. Otherwise, go at any speed you would like and do anything(other than something racist, sexist, etc(the bad things).

Some things that I'm looking for as a parent judge, is strong points, confidence in your speeches, and good articulation skills. Overall, bring your best debating self!

I am a parent judge, and this is my Second Year judging. I have been a public speaker for most of my school & college and Love it. My son is now a Middle School debater. My judging style is based on the following;

Your Mastery of your Content

Good Explanation, Sound Reasoning & Clear Arguments

Eye Contact & Body Language

Your Overall Attitude towards your Fellow Competitors

May The Best Performer Win !!

Hey, I'm Aurora Lung and I'm a current competitor in Congress and Original Oratory :)

Congress:

I'd say I weigh speech content and delivery about the same, but delivery a little more. The reason behind this is, Congress might be a debate event but it's the one where we should be sounding good too and that's what makes it fun. There's lots of different ways to handle delivery in this event, so I'm not going to tell you to be conversational or formal - you do what works for you, but just please don't be sounding like Eminem while you tell me about foreign policy!!! I will not absorb any of that info. Also, your rhetoric is so important; emotional appeal is a big deal to me so if you have some amazing bars in your speech you'll probably end up ranked pretty high. Please don't reuse any super old or basic rhetoric - stuff like "living paycheck to paycheck" just doesn't have the emotional appeal that really works.

But in spite of that, speech content is still definitely really important: honestly just make sure you make sense and that goes a long way!! Bills are often complicated if you're not a debater who's had to research it, so I love it when people A: break things down really well and B: make logical and not overly complex arguments.

I think the biggest factor I consider other than content and delivery is just your overall in-round presence. I'm a big fan of incorporating humor where it's appropriate (ex: funny walkup, jokes in intro/cross ex/throughout speech). However, I'm not at all a fan of being mean or condescending in cross ex. Just try not to constantly talk over people and you'll be fine. Also, your questions should actually be addressing the actual arguments/logic that the speaker mentioned in their speech! Please avoid asking certain kinds of questions that don't actually add to the debate. For example:

"Insert statistic. How do you respond to that?"

"Do you know the exact number of/do you have a statistic for _____?"

Finally, know your role in round. If you're the sponsor, be sure to outline the problem super well. Any speech past the sponsor should have refutations, and late round speeches should be weighing. Please don't be giving any constructive speeches near the end!!! When you're refuting, make sure you say "Sen/Rep ______" and their argument so I know exactly who and what you're addressing.

For POs: just don't mess up too much and you're good :)

Oratory:

Overall, I like to see more humor in oratories. I get that you may be talking about a heavy topic, but it's honestly hard to stay interested if you're yelling at me/sounding like you're on the verge of tears for the whole 10 minutes. Humor in the intro is always a good way to go; humor during the actual bulk of your speech really helps to keep me engaged. When you're explaining the problem, sound like you're having an actual conversation with me. Once you get to the impacts, I would love to see lots of emotional appeal - this really makes you stand out to me.

Percentages next to sections indicate the amount of weight I give each portion when ranking

Congress:
- strong argumentation and clash (45%) : later in the round, be careful not to simply repeat what others have said. Instead, interact with other competitors' points or introduce something new to the debate. Make sure to fully explain your arguments and their impact - a point isn't nearly as impactful or persuasive if it's just a statistic with little to no explanation. Keep in mind that the majority of the time, your judges haven't read the legislation - even if they have, they likely have very little knowledge on the topic. Your goal isn't just to make sure your fellow competitors understand your arguments - you also have to be able to effectively get your points across to someone who knows almost nothing about the topic, as these are the people who determine your ranks.

-engaging delivery(35%): variation in tone and volume, emotion (act passionate about the issues you're speaking on and the lives you're saying are impacted!!) and strong rhetoric and appropriate tone (keep in mind that you're playing the role of a government legislator)

-be respectful of other competitors in round (5% - this is an easy way to either drop or raise your rank by one point, so keep it in mind): this especially applies to cx and clash - be polite when asking your questions, and when it comes to clash, while your goal should be to refute others' points, don't do this in a way that comes off as excessively rude - you can refute a point without directly insulting/offending someone.

-cross-ex (15%):

when asking: your questions should be relevant to the round and the speaker's points, and be clear and concise - you don't want to take up the majority of the questioning period just by asking your question

when answering: stay calm and collected - answers should be relevant to the question asked and, like questions, be clear and concise

cross-ex questions to avoid (as a judge, I don't find it appealing when competitors ask these types of questions):

stating a statistic then asking, "how does your point still stand?"

"what do you think aboutinsert fact or event with little explanation attached to it here

"how does your point still stand when you look at my argument?"

(the issue with these questions is that they either don't add to the debate or provide questions/answers that give a very poor impression of the speaker and questioner's skills)

It is my first time judging. My kid debates in congress. I am looking for:
- Clear communication & emphasize the impact
- Data based facts
- Be respectful and gain respect
- Healthy cross ex

my views align with Aswin Surya

I am excited to be learning about the nuances of speech and debate as a relatively new S&D judge since last year, while I have been an avid debater in my younger days and continue to be a public speaker at my sphere of work.

Please bring your best self to the debate with your authentic voice and demonstrate your skills in communication, critical thinking, collaboration, diversified though process and creativity. It is refreshing to see some humor punched into your story and I am open to some fun while we are at this pretty serious endeavor! Try to be memorable and preferably in a good way. :-)

While you project your voice, be clear and concise, slow but sure. We are all here to support each other through your growth journey in the world of speech and debate and beyond. So, trust your instincts and be ready to enjoy the experience; humor is often a great medicine and be prepared to laugh at yourself when the chips may seem to be down! Remember, clash is a great way of making your points get through and stand out!

Feel free to ask questions, if any, as per the event guidelines. Let's have a great learning time together!

Best,

Shouvik Ray (He/Him)

Hello, my name is Adja Seck and I'm an NYU student. I have done debate for over four years having to experience in Parliamentary, congressional, policy, and debate forums. In my debate space, I encourage students and debaters to make sure that they know what they are arguing. I should not have to make assumptions and explain your cards.

I have preferred and seen students running black fem affs and negs that have a discourse over kritiques, plans, and thesis. If students run Topicality cases, I would prefer them to do so with several Kritiques and plans that substitute the failure of the opposing team and solve the topic.

In my rounds, I will not allow card dumps in the last two speeches of the round, nor open cross-fires. The crossfires for me are used to analyze the speaker's quick thinking skills. I take Crossfires into account when assigning speaker scores.

If both teams do not read me solid cases with cards that I have to look over for clarification, I will make a decision using a reform policy-like mindset. I also allow off-time roadmaps

Students of course should be respectful during their rounds and use their time actuality. There will be room for flexibility. I disclose only the student's choices and if there is no time crunch in between rounds.

By the end of the round the winning team will have rebutted all cards,(if able to), presented and carried out cards and assertions that have stood, has been able to read and interpret their case at all moments of the debate, and is respectful to the opposing teams and to the judge, me.

This is a summary, for a more in-depth explanation of what I’m looking for, see Zara Mehmood and Madeleine Yuan’s paradigms.

Creds:

1. NSDA National Finalist in Congressional Debate (Senate) under my alias Amran Hudda
2. California State Champion in Advocacy
3. 4th in the state in Lincoln Douglass under my alias Madeleine Yuan
4. Berkeley Double Octo competitor in Public Forum under my alias Zara Mehmood
5. MLK Semi-finalist under my alias Rishal Melvani

Percentages next to sections indicate the amount of weight I give each portion when ranking

Congress:
- strong argumentation and clash (45%) : later in the round, be careful not to simply repeat what others have said. Instead, interact with other competitors' points or introduce something new to the debate. Make sure to fully explain your arguments and their impact - a point isn't nearly as impactful or persuasive if it's just a statistic with little to no explanation. Keep in mind that the majority of the time, your judges haven't read the legislation - even if they have, they likely have very little knowledge on the topic. Your goal isn't just to make sure your fellow competitors understand your arguments - you also have to be able to effectively get your points across to someone who knows almost nothing about the topic, as these are the people who determine your ranks.

-engaging delivery(35%): variation in tone and volume, emotion (act passionate about the issues you're speaking on and the lives you're saying are impacted!!) and strong rhetoric and appropriate tone (keep in mind that you're playing the role of a government legislator)

-be respectful of other competitors in round (5% - this is an easy way to either drop or raise your rank by one point, so keep it in mind): this especially applies to cx and clash - be polite when asking your questions, and when it comes to clash, while your goal should be to refute others' points, don't do this in a way that comes off as excessively rude - you can refute a point without directly insulting/offending someone.

-cross-ex (15%):

when asking: your questions should be relevant to the round and the speaker's points, and be clear and concise - you don't want to take up the majority of the questioning period just by asking your question

when answering: stay calm and collected - answers should be relevant to the question asked and, like questions, be clear and concise

cross-ex questions to avoid (as a judge, I don't find it appealing when competitors ask these types of questions):

stating a statistic then asking, "how does your point still stand?"

"what do you think about insert fact or event with little explanation attached to it here

"how does your point still stand when you look at my argument?"

(the issue with these questions is that they either don't add to the debate or provide questions/answers that give a very poor impression of the speaker and questioner's skills)

Please don't run critical affirmatives in front of me. Please go at a conversational speed. I can't understand/ be able to flow spreading. If running a theory, please walk me through it so I understand you. I will judge based on how persuasive an argument is. I will also take evidence into account. I’m not big on debate jargon. Please be polite to your competitors. I also will a lot of times judge on if an argument is responded to.

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

mediocre Policy/LD debater at Canyon Crest --email chain: saihanyiruo.sd@gmail.com.

I try to be a normal person and NOT think about this activity as much as I used to...

reach out to me if you had any concerns about my ballot, issues before and after round, and at the tournament.

UPDATE for MS States: I have never judged Congress in my life lol take that how you will. I do not know the topic whatsoever except for the things that CHSSA provided me in the live doc. pretend that I am a parent judge.

GENERAL

• i'll yell clear once -- if i can't flow you i will stop paying attention
• i wont vote on something that happened outside of the round
• good analytics > good cards > bad cards > bad analytics
• tech > truthy tech > techy truth > truth. the more mishandled the arguments get, the more judge intervention i have to do. please don't make me do that or your speaks will suffer greatly.
• i write my ballot during the last two/four speeches -- tell me how to vote and feel free to overexplain things

Policy/LD

• assume no topic knowledge
• CP/DA -- yes.
• K/K Aff -- SCROLL DOWN
• not good for high level theory, trix, or phil
• tag team ok, spreading good
• condo 3 or more is bad

PF

• assume no topic knowledge
• pref me at your own risk
• PF is a speech focused event
• skip offtime roadmaps of "my case their case weighing"

Things that can get you a speaks bump:

• bring me food
• email me a list of 5 songs that i should listen to
• be funny

ABOUT KRITIKS

if ur reading philosophers please break it down for me. However, I'm good with most common K positions like cap, set col, queer pess, necroptx, etc. please feel free to ask because i wouldnt want you to realize i have no idea what your k aff is until the 2ac

***K RANT

I am sick and tired of seeing and debating against k debaters that run k affs that have nothing to do with the resolution. you HAVE to use the resolution as a point of stasis, otherwise u are wasting other ppls time.

"being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays. arguments are ridiculously disingenuous with little to no academic validity. quite a few authors would disagree with the arguments being produced in their name and it’s disappointing. make actual warranted arguments and interact with competing thesis claims." - sim low

***PF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE RANT

pf isnt the place for prog, so don't run it. believe me that when a parent judge walks into a pf round, they do not expect nor want to hear your 200 wpm lecture on the beliefs of some old dead guy. when i as a circuit judge walk into a pf round i am not expecting u to talk at 200 wpm, and i dont want to hear it. just bc i know prog doesnt mean that i want to judge it in PF. no theory unless its actually legitimate either. if u wanna run prog it might be worth asking me for my preferences first or striking me.

Hi debaters,

As a parent with a background in mathematics and English as my second language, I prefer debates that are clear and concise.

I appreciate debates conducted at a slower pace to ensure full understanding of the arguments and evidence presented.

Logical coherence and data-supported claims are vital to me, given my mathematical background.

I value debaters who can clearly outline their arguments and if possible, effectively use visual aids to bolster their points.

Professionalism and courtesy in presentation are also crucial as they enhance effective communication.