Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011, first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and since 2020doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS forensics from Miramar, FL. I have a B.A. in English / B.S. in Biology and a Masters in Ed. Leadership. I’ve judged everything from locals to NSDA Nationals. Four time NSDA national finalist coach. NSDA Speech school of excellence 2023. Follow us on IG @evergaldesdebate

Rule #1 – Play Nice.

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

Argumentation & Evidence

I will be flowing your arguments and I do not want to be part of an email chain. I will judge off your flow. Having said that, please sign-post and don’t spread. I’m fine with rapid talking, but honestly, it is all about quality of argumentation over quantity.

Having solid warrants is great; but warrants without extension or analytical impact is fail. Just because you can rattle off stat after stat doesn’t show me you are an excellent debater and should win a round.

While it is very doubtful that I will be calling for cards, make sure you have exchanged cards with your opponents prior to the round so we don’t need to waste time with that in session. If you are unable to provide a requested card within 15 seconds, speaker points will drop and I will strike that piece of evidence from your argument.

Lincoln Douglas

I've seen a trend recently where competitors try to spread five or six contentions. If you elect to do this, be prepared for me to either a) review written case (time permitting before decision deadline) or b) not penalize your opponent for "dropping" Cs. Again, quality over quantity for me as a judge.

I am comfortable with counter-plans in most cases; however, I don't coach kritik's or "Ks" specifically; although I do my best to read the literature contained in topical case briefs. While I would never outright fail a position for running a "K", you will more than likely need to be super-awesome to win as I prefer traditional LD rounds. If you plan to run straight theory, please strike me.

World Schools Debate (WSD)

I'm thrilled to see WSD being brought to more and more tournaments. Having said that, many don't have a clear understanding of the format. Please make sure you have reviewed the NSDA guidelines, FFL Rules (if Florida), and / or tournament specific rule-set for the event.

As a judge, great cases for me will begin with defining and contextualizing the motion from the prop / opp's position. Furthermore, if the motion does not specifically give us what "this house" represents, define / clarify it for me. Make sure you introduce a clear, believable framework,before beginning the body of your case. As the case moves forward, all substansives, observations, and evaluations should be presented with specific, concrete examples. I don't by hyperbolic, generic, or slopply linked pieces of evidence. Having said that, do not turn WSD into a PF round, I'm really not interested in seeing how many cards you can (prepared motion) throw into your case.

As the round moves on, both sides have a duty to settle the framework debate, by either furthering clash over framework or moving on and accepting your opponent's framework. Don't weight til the reply speech to attempt to resolve framework issues or I will ignore your response and pref the team that provided a clear framework weighing mechanism earlier in the round.

Having listened to all three speakers, your content score will be reflective of how well your team not only presented your case, but how you chose to respond to your opponent's position. Again, I prefer specifics with well-thought out analytics, then simple summary of an opponent's substansive and then telling me (with non-specific or simply summarized evidence) how they fail to meet the metric of your framework. Dig deeper then that.

To earn maximun style points from me as a judge, speakers should be engaging and passionate about their assigned position. The speaking delivery style of this event is much closer to OO and Congress then it is to more traditional debate formats. Inclusion of rhetorical devices, proper speaking tone / inflection, and stage presence will have a huge impact on my ballot. Also, if you spend your time with your head in your case and not engaging with the round, you'll bore me and your speaks will suffer.

For strategy points, make sure to make use of PoIs outside of protected time. This should be spread around the team and not just be one person. Furthermore, how you respond to PoIs to further develop clash within the debate and use as a opportunity shift course mid-speech is total win.

Judging

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that is unique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

Also, if you've read this far, congrats! You get to hear my judging pet-peve - climate / nuclear war / extinction arguments. They feel like such an easy out. I'll certainly consider them, but I'm thinking we can be more original than that.

I will disclose results at the end of the round as per tournament directions on disclosure. Feedback will be on ballot, and if I have time and you'd like oral feedback (if disclosure is allowed) I will give oral FB.

Bonus Points

If you can slide in a reference to any of the following, I’ll give your speaker points a little bump:

- Rick and Morty - Must be a Season 7 Reference ... or something involving Mr. Nimbus.

- Bad / Silly / Campy Horror Movies

- Why Bad Monkey was seriously phenomenal and your expectations or thoughts on Season 2.

I like to be entertained. This is my weekend I’m giving up so you all can participate in a great tournament. Make me laugh and keep me engaged when you speak and the world will be an almost beautiful place.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions will also resonate with me. I listen to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debate from you and your peers that includes refutation of previous arguments and crystallization of arguments rendered. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging.'

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind toward the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

I am a parent judge and value speeches with clear, logical flow of ideas supported by evidence, delivered with good inflection, energy, and proper speed.

I look forward to hearing well-researched and constructive arguments during the early round, and speeches that bring new ideas to advance the debate and clash from previous speakers, as the round progresses.

Good synthesis in late round speeches is appreciated but should go beyond rehashing previous statements and be used to present own cohesive arguments.

I do not mind aggressive cross but please be respectful.

For PO, I value those who can demonstrate good knowledge of procedures and manage the chamber in a transparent and efficient manner.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

My name is WK (they/she).

I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been teaching full time since finishing undergrad in 2020. Currently, I teach debate to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress (though I tab more than I judge these days), so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

LD NOTE FOR BRONX '24:Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

I am not a regular LD judge: I debated in the Northeast ten years ago, and LD was still slow and trad. That said, I have recently begun coaching more progressive/speedy LD. So while I am hypothetically good for the K and really dense phil and I can handle up to 300 wpm, I am simply not as adept as some other judges might be in terms of flowing the fastest LD rounds. So, bear that in mind when reviewing these basic preferences:

1. LARP/Policy (simply where I have the most experience)
2. 2. K(inc. POMO, ID, and K affs) (def Kvk>>KvPolicy>>>>>KvT, but do you)
3. 3. Trad, Phil (fine)
4. Theory and T (I would really rather not have to evaluate this)
5. 5/S. Tricks (probably a hard drop if you go for the trick even if you win it, ngl)

PUBLIC FORUM

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Yes, please put me on the email chain ( wkay@berkeleycarroll.org )

Speed: speed is mostly fine (I'm pretty comfy up to ~300 wpm) but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down (usually your enunciation is the problem and not the speed). 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest, since I am coaching every topic I'm judging. That said, it's your job to indict ev if it's bad or else I'm not gonna count it against the person who reads it (though I'll probably note it in RFD/comments and reflect it in speaker points). Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), then just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Obviously, if you think evidence is clipped or totally bogus, that's a different story by the rules. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Framework first, it's gonna decide how I evaluate the flow. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why I should prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD and will just off of whatever weighing mechanisms are given in-round. Or worse, I'll just intervene if there are no clear weighing mechs. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot. If nobody reads framework, give me clear weighing mechanisms in rebuttal and summary, don't make me intervene.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in second rebuttal. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded-to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Any defense read in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self-kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points effectively.

Summary: 1st Summary needs to frontline just like second rebuttal. Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based on it. I like it when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). Suppose I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's: in that case, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: a reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can where you need to. The Final Focus should then respond to anything new in summary (hopefully not too much) and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally go by this: “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: I’m super open to it (BESIDES TRICKS)! I’m relatively new to coaching this sort of material (way more experience than your average PF coach, but way less than your average LD/CX coach), but feel very confident evaluating it. Topical link would be sick on a K but if not, make sure your link/violation is suuuuuper clear or else you’re in hot water. Make sure you’re extending ROB and the alt(s) in every speech after you read the K, or else it’s a non-starter for my ballot. I’m most excited about (and most confident evaluating) identity-based Ks and those that critique debate as an institution (e.g. as an extension/branch of the colonial project). On theory, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and almost certainly breaking rules tbh, and so am very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a disclosure round I judged in 2023), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good your theory is. I don’t love disclosure theory only because I’ve gotten real bored of it and don’t think it makes for good rounds. That said, if you’re all about disclo and that’s your best stuff, I’ll evaluate it. On a different but related note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." Finally: I don't need theory to be in shell format, but it does make flowing easier. If you're not sure about what I might think about the Prog you wanna run, feel free to ask me before the round. In short, as long as it is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your violations are real and/or impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. And, to be clear, DON’T READ TRICKS IN FRONT OF ME.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

CONGRESS

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school when judging this event insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course, I want good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies), and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chain, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningfully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a really strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, and call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turn to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when I judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. See the Equity statement at the top.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Lay congressional parent judge. Have clear and understandable delivery.

I'm very expressive when it comes to how I'm feeling about your argumentation and style. Eye contact is very important to me, as is organization and flow.

I will not accept rehash, as repeated content does not enhance the round. Please make adaptations as needed throughout and clash with previous content.

During questioning I will dock people for being overly aggressive. Fiery and passionate is good, condescending and snarky is not.

Good luck.

I teach AP English Language and Composition and have been coaching Debate for three years (though I also have several years of previous experience as a competitor and coach in Speech/Individual Events).

Please continue reading to see what I value and look for within Congressional sessions:

• You need to have a clear organizational structure with effective signposting and verbal transitions that allow me to follow the flow of your arguments as well as specific, well supported contentions and refutations.

• I expect you to tell me not only what your evidence is but also why it should matter to me as a judge and a US citizen. Above all, your argument needs to be logical and realistic. While it is easy to exaggerate or extrapolate extreme outcomes, consider the likelihood of the implications that you suggest within the status quo. Your impact should be tangible and concrete. Don’t rely on jargon that does not appeal to your audience to carry your reasoning and assume that it will achieve the intended effect. Be specific and accessible in your explanation.

• I look positively on extemporaneous speaking and for making adjustments/flipping based on the flow of debate within the round rather than rehashing already established ideas. In other words, you should be able to tell me how your argument not only responds to the issue addressed within the legislation but also how it responds to the framing of the debate and what you have heard from other speakers.

• I frown on breaking cycle, especially when splits are taken at the beginning of the session and there is plenty of time to flip as needed. Debate means that you should be able to adequately consider, present, and respond to a variety of positions. ESPECIALLY if it may have not been what you originally planned in your hypothetical mapping of the flow of debate while prepping.

• Refutations should be specific and developed with clear reasoning rather than vaguely listing representative names from the opposing side. They should also evolve as the round does. Rehashing refutations that have been already addressed by previous speakers demonstrates that you are not listening to your fellow competitors.

• Be mindful of how you present yourself throughout the session, especially during questioning or as an audience member. Maintain respect for your competitors and decorum at all times. I am always watching and listening, even when it may look like I am busy doing something else.

• Your visual delivery should be intentional and enhance your argument. I frown upon spending significant time reading from your pad rather than speaking directly to the audience. I will do my best to give specific feedback on how to improve your delivery as I know that you will likely get more feedback about your argument and content over the course of the tournament.

Thank you for your time and attention preparing for today’s debate. I expect to have a productive and engaging session!

Email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

TL;DR: Be kind to each other.

If I am your parliamentarian: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore those things at your peril.

Presiding officers: I expect you to use preset recency. If the tournament does not have preset recency, I expect you to create your own with a randomizer. This is an equity issue and has the potential to impact your ranks. I pay attention to pre-session, in-session, and post-session politics and expect to see the presiding officer as a leader in those discussions. Remember that your job is to run things quickly while adhering to parliamentary procedure - Exercise your power if necessary but don't skip necessary processes. An easy example of this is calling for motions - 90% of the time instead of calling for motions you can just do

Congress competitors: I will not shake your hand. There is nothing I hate more than inauthentic "thank yous," especially when they're made loud enough for everyone to hear. The narrative arc of the round is extremely important - The first few speeches should be constructive, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate. Keep in mind that Congress is a debate event, so every speech past the author/sponsor needs engagement. That also means I expect people to flip - Past two bills on the same side of debate I will start penalizing speakers for not flipping.I have a laundry list of pet peeves that, while they won't impact your rank, will irritate me. Those include unnecessary and unfunny preamble before you speak, a refusal to flip for speeches, making motions that aren't real, and using the phrase "first affirmative."

Public Forum: I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln Douglas: I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

World Schools: The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Evidence ethics:

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Theory: I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Death Good/Oppression Good: "Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering."Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I am an English teacher and a second year coach to debate. I am new to judging Public Forum, thus please approach this like you would a lay judge. I am looking for the following:

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner. Make sure you are signposting as you speak.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic. If you speak faster than I can flow, I will put my pen down.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Avoid a lot of jargon.

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

Finally: I do not flow during questioning, so if there is something you'd like me to note, please return to it in your summary.