concord carlisle '26, i have done some speech and debate

general

-don't try to judge adapt

-don't lie. ethical evidence in all events. i do care about sourcing - give me the wilson center, not reuters for the 999th time

-make me laugh! be yourself

-in online extemp rounds, position yourself so it doesn't look like ur reading off the screen and I can see ur facial expressions

.

.

.

debate-specific

-be nice and have fun

-don't spread your opponents out of the round: if I can't understand it, it's not on my flow. i won't flow off the doc

-evidence is overrated: read analytics

-actually extend with new implications and weighing: "extend ___" is not an extension

No, you can't bribe me in order to get good ranks. I have more integrity than my Congress persona would suggest.

Howdy! My name is Henry (he/him) and I’m a congress and worlds debater (as well as an extemper) from Texas. I’m a fairly seasoned competitor in these events, but definitely not the most seasoned judge you’ve ever had, so this paradigm is more than anything an outline of what I think good debate looks like based on my experience as a debater.

My goal as a judge is to provide constructive criticism of where you can improve as a debater, but if you have feedback/questions for me, I’m more than happy to hear you out!

ROUND CONDUCT EXPECTATIONS:

• Make a conscious effort to make the round inclusive. You need to respect your peers' pronouns, name pronunciations, accommodations, etc. It's one thing to mess up and make the correction; it's very different to completely disregard someone's identity. This goes for everybody.

• [For congress mainly, but this applies to everyone]: Do better than actual congress. Don't be hostile or condescending--even all the "good" people are--because it ruins the round for everybody. Respect and decorum are the foundation of a good round in any event.

Discrimination/acting hateful towards your fellow competitors is unacceptable and non-negotiable. This is a losing gamble and I will drop you.

Now for the rambling...

CONGRESS

Don’t think of this as a “how to do congress for dummies” instruction manual; think of this as my views on what the best practices of a good congress round should be. How you choose to do congress is ultimately your call, so play to your strengths and have fun!

CONGRESS IN 11 WORDS

Change things. Break norms. Smash arguments. Innovate. Move the round forward!

CONGRESS IN 3 POINTS

I consider all three of these principles fairly deeply; I don't weigh presentation vs. argumentation "70/30" or anything like that.

• ARGUMENTATION: I will vote for debaters who do the most to advance the round and strengthen their side. Destroy your opponents’ highest ground, extend your side’s winning impacts, and hand me the clearest analysis possible. Don’t just tell me you’re winning, prove it.

• PRESENTATION: I will vote for debaters who bring the confidence, eloquence, and knowledge that make engaging speeches. Persuasive presentation is what makes congress a uniquely powerful type of debate, so try your best and get creative!

• ENGAGEMENT: Keep questioning, speaking, and engaging with the round. If you disappear from the debate just because you don’t like the bill or because the 3-hour round has gotten the best of you, you make me wonder how invested you really are [this isn’t great]. Keep fighting!

CONGRESS: THE SNYDER CUT

My philosophical “Congress is _______” statement:

Congress is debate presented in a way that is both easily understandable and compelling to ordinary people. If you’ve ever watched C-SPAN, you know that real-world legislators don’t speak with extreme speed or use unfamiliar terminology ("going down the flow", "solvency deficit", etc.); they debate complex legislation with big implications at a level their couch-potato constituents can understand and persuade people to take actions on problems they see.

Here’s a more extensive list of what I like to see in congress rounds:

• For early-round speakers (for sponsors this is fundamental): assume I know absolutely nothing about the bill at hand and give me a detailed rundown of what the bill would accomplish, who would implement it, and what the real-world impacts of its enactment would be. Why is this bill even necessary/completely atrocious?

• CITE THE LEGISLATION! This is a relatively simple action to take, but it makes you seem vastly more knowledgeable regarding the legislation you’re debating, and makes your words much more credible.

• For everyone except the sponsor, refute and interact with the arguments of the opposing side. More specifically, refute the STRONGEST arguments on the opposing side; don't just target the easiest or weakest arguments. This doesn't just have to look like simple rebuttals; I really like turns and offensive responses if that's your thing, but again, how you debate is up to you.

• Analyze the debate and draw new conclusions that keep the debate alive and relevant [crystalize and weigh if you're later in the round]. Using your limited speech time for rehash is a massive waste of your time, your competitors' time, and an educational opportunity for all of us. Rehash is not the same thing as offering a quick review of key clashes as context for analysis; rehash is repeating arguments that have already been made without adding any new analysis or implications to move the debate forward. Please, please, please use your speech to bring something new into the round!

• Be as persuasive as possible. The more invested and engaged in the debate you act, the more compelling a speaker you seem. I don't place much value on having a congress "persona"; I would rather you simply be as enthusiastic and authentic as you possibly can. Your speaking style and rhetorical choices offer a huge opportunity to distinguish yourself as a unique and effective speaker, but they also offer an opportunity to experiment with your approach to presentation. Being inventive, innovative, and creative in congress will take you far.

• Use evidence to substantiate your argument, not to make it. Your arguments should make logical sense without evidence, and what evidence you use should be contextualized and warranted into your broader arguments, rather than standing alone. [Also, make sure your evidence passes the smell test; if you're asking, "do I cite a news article from 1983?" or "is this Russian propaganda?", you should probably look elsewhere.]

PO Paradigm:

• A wise congress debater once said, "there are three type of PO: fast POs, charismatic POs, and bad POs". Being fast not only means you know how to keep precedence in a timely manner, it also means you know the rules of congress well enough to resolve rules questions and issues quickly. Being charismatic means you know how to lead the chamber in a respectful and engaging--but not intrusive--way, and know how to make the round fun in addition to being fair. Being bad means you don't know how to control a chamber or make no effort to preserve decorum or resolve challenges when the need arises. Trying your best is the bare minimum here.

• I am willing to grant POs more slack if no one is willing to run and you are forced to take on the challenge, but I still need to see a consistent effort to preserve decorum, keep precedence, and move the round along. Know what you're doing, or at least do a good job of acting like it.

• Automatic precedence charts can be useful, but you still need to know what's going on in the round without them. If you can't explain why someone's precedence is what it is because you're letting an opaque computer program do your job, that's on you.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

• Debate is a game, which makes it competitive by nature, but it's ultimately not that deep. The only expectations I have for you at the end of the day are to try your hardest, be open to learning, and be a respectful person.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi! My name is Max Goldberg and I am a current freshman at UT Austin majoring in biochemistry. I also am a member of the University of Texas at Austin Speech team where I mainly compete in extemp.

For interps/PAs, no need for a paradigm here, you guys cant change your events to cater to a judge so just give me what you got!

Extemp:

SUBSTRUCTURE>>>>>. It is what I value the most in a speech, you should be answering the question with a umbrella answer thesis and giving me 3 unique points on why you are correct. You should have flushed out warranting answering any possible questions I might have while listenting to you. I dont care about humor, I would much rather flushed out analysis or a narrative AGD instead of a corny pun. 7-8 sources are good, make sure they are high quality. No hertiage foundation, buisiness insider, usa today fox news, cnn (for domestic politics) etc. I want to see at least one high quality source in a speech, whether that be a thinktank or journal, i dont want a speech full of "New York Times and Washington Post." A couple of fluency breaks are ok, I will bump you down when it gets to the point that your argument has weakened because of delivery. No punching down at victims, dont make offensive jokes. My political ideology does not and should not matter, I approach all speeches from a completely center view so do not worry about judge bias. However, do not say something completely one sided or just incorrect, I do have a tendency to fact check if I hear something absurd. Overall, just give it your best shot and I am excited to hear you speak!

hi my name is sasha (clark 23' plano west 25') and i fw debate on the low

extemp toc champ 24' | asu champ 24' | toc 23'24'25' | tfa finals 24'

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE, MAIMUNA ILYAS, ROSHAN SHIVNANER, DAVID & AVA CUI, PLAYBOI CARTI, AMRITA SHYAM, ESTHER "bearuh" JESS, SAHITH REDDY, ARRMAN? KAPOOR?

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1. Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2. If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3. Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4. Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

PREF SHEET

1. K

2. Policy

3. Theory

4. T/Tricks

5. Phil (bro plz strike)

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1. phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a) explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2. the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a) 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b) dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

c) make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3. policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a) make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b) if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4. theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a) if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5. tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6. topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1. why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L20, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2. if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3. i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4. please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

EXTEMP - bold is TLDR

I don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence.

Basically, all of your analysis should be linear, i.e a sets up b and b sets up c which is why my answer is correct. A lack of cohesive argumentation in extemp is the easiest way to get a really mid rank even if you're a good speaker.

for the love of god have all of your points stand alone, don't have point 1 explain point 2 and etc...

Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 100% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points.

Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

If you steal jokes and I recognize that, you're actively violating the rules of extemp - that's a 6.

I prefer competitors memorize the majority of their speech, that’s how you impress me as a judge. the more stuff you have to reference in round makes me feel like your 30 minutes was used incorrectly. if you do use a card/notes please try and limit it to sources.

I'm a really slow typer, so i'm looking down a lot at my computer and stuff - just because im not looking directly at you doesn't mean i'm disinterested, and certainly doesn't mean i'm not listening.

if i can sense you're having fun, then i will too.

Hi! I'm a senior at FAU HS and this is my 7th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

i love extemp ????