Pairings just came out, the round begins in 5 minutes, and you don't want to read the full paradigm version: Be nice, be engaging, be funny, have a unique persona. Warranting and weighing is VERY VERY important. Do not be rude (it really aint that deep). comparative analysis = very important.

My main areas of experience are congress, PF, parliamentary (east coast), LD, extemp, and OO. I'm currently a senior in high school and planning to study political ethics and environmental policy in college.

I value strong argumentation, (respectful) clash, and debaters who have a unique persona (especially debaters who lean into their sense of humor). From the first neg onward, clash and substantive refutation is a MUST. While I'm mainly looking at the quality of your arguments, it's also important that you speak clearly and keep everyone interested. Don't be afraid to take risks and let your personality shine through. I want to be entertained!! During cross-examination, just keep it respectful and avoid getting too loud.

Back up your points with evidence, warrants, analysis, and rhetoric. Don’t just vent to me about your thoughts on this bill or how you think other speeches suck. Simple arguments (especially comparative arguments) with strong warranting usually win. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be nice to each other. I really don’t want to see a bunch of angry highschoolers yelling at each other about sanctions on Cuba at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Be enthusiast and be entertaining.

Do not be dependent on your legal pad. While this is congressional DEBATE, public speaking and engagement is extremely important. Making good points will not be nearly as effective as they could be if you do not deliver them well. Think of it this way: never in my life have I heard someone say, “yeah, Obama really won that debate on the flow.” people determine if politicians win the debate based off of both the content they deliver and, more importantly, HOW they deliver. The heart of congress is persuading the ordinary person. So, act as if I am a first time parent judge from rural minnesota who has never even heard of congressional debate before.

Be spontaneous and engaging. Im a sucker for good ORIGINAL rhetoric…don’t just tell me that democracy dies in darkness…put time and thought into your rhetoric.

Do NOT just dump evidence without actual analysis. I'd rather see thoughtful analysis that explains your points clearly than a bunch of card dumping. In new york state finals my sophomore year, I read a speech with 17 cards and statistics in it…do NOT be that guy. Remember, warrants are key; your arguments need to make sense on their own, not just rely on evidence. Be clear and to the point in your reasoning.

Take risks. I HIGHLY (like very very highly) reward when speakers stand up for speeches when they have to (e.g. flipping on an uneven debate or prepping a sponsorship last minute).

POs: BE FUNNY AND HAVE PERSONALITY. be fast, fair, and efficient. your job is to lead the chamber, not JUST calling on people and dealing with parliamentary procedure. try to get us out of session as fast as possible. a good po will be ranked top 4. also, if no one else runs for PO but you step up because you have to, I will take that into consideration and rank you higher.

ANY homophobia, racism, or any misogyny will get you INSTANTLY dropped. Also, do not tokenize the trauma of minorities for the sake of “pathos.” If you want to know what I mean by that, read this: tinyurl.com/tokenizationarticle

If you have any questions, feel free to email me (owcasey@packer.edu) or dm me on insta (owencaseyy_).

Ahoy!

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

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

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

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

Congressional

Argumentation

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

Rhetoric

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

Questioning

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

Notes

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

Public Forum

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

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

+0.5 speaks for taking notes during the RFD

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

I have done a couple of years in Congress: went to toc, nats, and ncfls.

POs:

Best rank you can get from me is 2 ranks above the median number of competitors. Why? Y'all got the easy job. Also take your time (don't make mistakes cause u went too fast).

Speeches:

Bad lay = bad rank.

Specific things for certain speeches:

Sponsor: Contextualize issue, tell me what your bill does (literally section by section), and give me the generalized impacts. I don't want to hear a very "generic" arg after the sponsor, please go over them. Also give me good evidence (I need recent evidence if you are the sponsor). ALSO frame the debate.

Early-mid round speeches: Reframe the debate if your sponsor did not do so properly. I need some refutation on earlier speakers. Give good substance and content. Your job is to move the debate forward. Also any unique argumentation goes in here, don't give me new things in the late round cause i need to see how ur argument plays out with other speakers.

Late-round: I NEED GOOD ANALYSIS HERE. State the questions that have yet to be solved, please show me the interaction between the aff and neg. Please go over the arguments, any loopholes, and REFUTE. Your job is to prove that your side won the debate. Summarize and analyze. I don't want new arguments that are not in response to anyone, if you want to do that give ur speech early-mid. Please crystal -> don't just read the speech you were gnna give but couldn't cause of recency.

**If I'm your parli, try to diversify your speeches -> shows me ur pretty good at congress.

Things not to do:

REHASH that doesn't do anything for the debate = 9.

No refutation = 9.

Fake cards or no cards = 9.

Yelling in questioning = 9.

Recycled AGDs + cliche -> give me some new stuff or else imma fall asleep.

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!

Congress kid-turned-judge, be warned:

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

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

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

hi im jiadong

Congress

• For me, Congress is 30/70 speaking and argumentation.
• I'm more of a speaker myself, but ultimately it's thecherry on top. What makes Congress so great (keep congress great!!!!!) is interacting with the round.
• Don't be afraid to run arguments late into the round unless its rehash.
• Rule of thumb?
• POing:
• Hot take, but I'm not the most massive supporter of POs. I appreciate that someone is willing to keep the round running, but I will rank good speakers over POs anytime, anywhere. However, if you do PO, expect to be ranked anywhere from 4-6, unless you do badly or do exceptionally well.

Extemp

Hey y'all! I'm a junior at and captain at Hagerty High school, this is my 2nd year competing in congressional debate. Finaled Emory, senate and ncfl.

If you don't wanna read all this: have fun or look like you're having fun, fulfill your role in the round, I don't care when you speak give me good warranting, get creative any style can get my one. This is a game of persuasion persuade me you're right that's all you have to do.

If you're still here I'm a yapper so get ready.

Congress

Congress is unique because it's a fusion of both speech and debate. At the end of the day, all you have to do is persuade me that you understand the round and that your arguments make sense. There's a lot of different ways to do that so I don't believe in one specific argument structure or style of debate so as long as you can do that you can win.

Delivery

Be persuasive- that's the bottom line. How you do that is up to you but let your personality shine through. If you're a funny person irl translate that into round. I will reward funny or creative intros. I'm younger as well so if you make a funny joke, even it's a little out there I'll probably laugh. Creative rhetoric/framework will be rewarded. I also need to see the energy level in your speech change so vocal/tonal variation is important to me.

Authenticity

If I've heard the intro before you're losing points. Similarly, if you didn't write the speech or I can tell who coaches you based on the speech you're diffidently getting dropped be authentic.

Round Strategy

To get my one you not only need to show you're a great speaker but that you fulfill your role in the round.

Sponsors/first neg

I'll always reward a solid first cycle speech as long as you do two things.

1. set up adequate ground for your side to build off of with arguments that are well warranted yet simple to understand.

2. defend your stance in cross throughout the round, since you speak early I expect strategic cross ex blocks that poke holes in the other side's arguments

Constructive/Mid Round

Two things I need to see here

1. Even though you're not first cycle, I want to see something new. A new point, new analysis or impact extension is necessary to be ranked regardless of where you speak.

2. You provide adequate refutation for the biggest arguments so far. I can always tell the difference between a speech decorated with last names and one that refutes the heart of the argument. Therefore, attack WARRANTS and/or outweigh.

Late Round Speakers

Congress has adapted where a traditional "crystal" is no longer strategic. You can't just review the round and weigh crystals need some constructive element. This is by far the hardest type of speech to pull off well, if you can do it you prove yourself important to the round and will rank high. Late round speakers have 2 things I need to see.

1. Overview of round- this needs to hit the main arguments of the round, it doesn't need to take long. Keep in mind I flow heavily during rounds, so I'll expect you to hit the major arguments as a late speaker.

2. Simple framework-we have a tendency in this event to overcomplicate things, a late round speech needs to be organized. What does that look like? Group multiple speakers' arguments and attack them wholistically. I want clear taglines and organization, personally I think excessive name dropping looks messy. Hit everybody's name, state the arg, ref.

Flipping

I will reward speakers who flip. I've been in this situation many times and I know its stressful so if you can still give a good speech I've got your back. In the same way, don't fake flip a speech. If you claimed to be on the negation then make a big show of flipping to a sponsor, then get up there with a typed speech........ yeah no. If you have the speech, give it, trust me its not strategic to fake flip and delay debate for antics.

Presiding Officer- I understand how important this role is and how difficult it can be to get right. That said very rarely is a PO in my top three. In a room full of gifted speakers, you would have to be an exceptional PO to get my one. Keep clean and organized, be funny if you can and you'll rank highly. Even though PO's often win rounds I personally find very few instances in which I believe the PO was the best in the room. That said if you want the one, you need to go above and beyond as a leader in the chamber.

Framework- no not like LD

Framework is so simple yet I often see it get lost. Tell me what you’re proving, tell me who you’re refuting, unstructured args aren’t getting you anywhere. Analysis is the most important thing on my ballot, use your delivery to heighten that analysis and you've got the one. Overall, no matter where you speak, a clear framework will take you a long way, but a mistake people make is sticking to one structure and over complicating things. Simple, well-organized arguments win rounds, yapping doesn’t. Also watch the congresssy vocab, I Don't want to hear “principally”, “Highest ground” or “layers of analysis five times in a speech. I want to hear something that WINS the debate and be able to follow it easily, play with structure, get creative and have fun!!

Analysis

Should be thorough, well warranted. My biggest thing is making sure you don't overgeneralize. For example, impacting out the "marginalized groups" that's over half of America get specific. Another example with foreign policy specifically, don't generalize an entire continent/large group of countries (like Latin America or sub-saharan africa) as "corrupt" or impact out to a wholistic reduction poverty by x%. Is it realistic we reduce poverty by over half across an entire continent with a few billion dollars..,.probably not.

Decorum-

I'm paying attention to everything. If someone is notably left out of caucusing, bring them in. Similarly, I don't appreciate people who push a clearly pre-set docket on members of the room who would clearly support something else. It's a debate event for a reason, allowing everyone to express their opinions, not only on legislation but with dockets as well. Be respectful in round with both how you address your competitors in speeches and questions. In speeches there's a difference between explaining a net harm and saying the speakers on the other side want that to happen. Any phrasing where you make the opposite side sound like they're supporting whatever net harm you present isn't gonna fly. In questions I understand you can cut people off and please do, questioning can become unproductive without it. However, if you're not letting someone speak at all or being disrespectful to your competitors you will be dropped.

Final note- in congress you are always performing, from the speeches you give to the questions you ask keep the energy up and play the role. Be confident, confidence in yourself will take you a long way.

If you have questions on ballots or anything else, please please feel free to e-mail at gracejax437@gmail.com.

Hi, I'm Ashish Kashyap, and I'm a junior at William Fremd High School, in my 3rd year of Congressional Debate. I've been competing in the ICDA and TOC circuit for a few years, have won a few things and all that. Hope this paradigm helps. My email is ashdakash@gmail.com if you have any questions. Feel free to ask anything.

General thoughts:

In terms of judging, I don't have much experience, but all of my views as a judge reflect what I feel about Congress as a whole, which I can easily talk about. My debate "philosophy" came from something a basketball coach told me many years ago.

"Take only what the game gives you".

To me, the most important thing in Congress is to be able to adapt all of your "prep" and pre-prepared rhetoric and such, and be ready to completely change everything you had. It’s very obvious when someone hasn't adjusted for the round properly, and it really stands out in a negative light. Be ready to change, adapt, and even learn new things in chamber. The best speeches I've ever seen, happen when people have an extemporaneous response to the ongoings of the round.

Delivery/Presentation:

To me, a speaker's presentation of their arguments can be the difference-maker. I heavily heavily value strong delivery, with passion, and skillful tone variation. Feel free to be as loud as you want. Just make sure to give your volume a meaning within the context of what you're saying, otherwise you're just yelling at the chamber. I recognize that delivery is a skill that not everybody has down, and that's OK. I will never penalize for a speaker who's presenting strong, unique arguments for not having entrancing delivery. But if you can effectively convey your ideas, and pair that with skillful presentation, you will be rewarded. Don’t forget that your delivery is the best place to try out new things, new styles, new voices, and I really value this when it's done well.

Argumentation/Structure:

The best way to get my 1 with argumentation is to bring a game changing take. Find arguments that will rip the debate a new one, instead of relying on things we’ve both heard a million times. In this day and age, with TikTok and YouTube being so popular, everybody’s entertainment driven. So am I. I will be massively entertained if you present arguments that nobody else would even think of. And don’t do your amazing argument a disservice by not connecting it back to the round and your opposition. But when you do refute, I’m not impressed with refuting weaker arguments. Pick on someone your size. If your argument is truly round winning, then you should be refuting the strongest arguments of the other side. This doesn’t mean name dropping, this means going through their links, and showing me why they do not work anymore. Once you’ve done this, explain why your argument matters in multiple contexts, and why it wins the round. Many debaters drop some crazy cards, but don’t do anything to explain why anyone should care. When that happens, what’s being said isn’t really an “argument”, it’s just a statement.

For structure, I don’t know how else to say this, but do whatever the hell you want. I don’t care if you have one point, two points, three points, bloc, no block, whatever it may be, do not feel limited to the things you’ve been taught. At the end of the day, I’m just looking for a fluid organization that’s clearly conveyed, and the possibilities to accomplish that are endless. Get creative, do it properly, and it’ll be rewarded.

For sponsorships, I have a simple set of expectations. Frame the context properly, and jumpstart the affirmation by tying your set of arguments to the context. I don’t care about having or not having pre-refs. Don’t shy away from the sponsor, I think good sponsors always stand out in muddled debates.

PO:

I don’t think I’m capable of giving a PO a 1 rank. I’ll be honest, I’m a really bad PO. Like historically bad (But I’ve still been in enough rounds to know when you’ve messed up). In terms of Congress, I don’t understand why having a student PO is necessary. So as a combination of those two things, I don’t rank them as 1. That being said, if you’re the PO, make minimal mistakes, be fair and relatively efficient, and I’ll rank you higher than the break cutoff for the round. For outrounds, I’ll expect more efficiency and almost no mistakes, but I’ll properly reward you for that.

Also, not having a personality and being “boring” as a PO won’t knock you down, but please, make jokes, have some fun as a PO (while not sacrificing your efficiency). Rounds are long, people get tired, so PO’s with a likable personality will always stand out.

Questioning:

I take note of questioning. Consistent good questioning and good composure and responses can move the needle. Both the question in question, and the response. With shorter blocks, be concise, and don’t add liberties or congratulations. Get straight to the point. Cut straight into the arguments and the links. Remember to be civil, but I’m fine with heated back and forths. Passion is great!

Hey, I'm Enan! I'm a rising junior at American Heritage High School! I've competed in Congress for about 2 and a half years now, and am still on the circuit! If you're reading this, you're probably doing something EIF related, and lwk that's goated!

The golden rule: Be yourself! There are thousands of ways to communicate to me an argument, but the best way will be the one you did yourself. Not your coach. Not your friend. You.

For Congress,

TLDR; Don’t give arguments that you think will make you stand out, or are unique, or ones that you like. Give arguments that win the round for your side. Make the most impactful argument that gives your side a lot of ground, and murder the most impactful argument made on the other side. Lead the charge for your advocacy and that’s how you’ll get my 1.

Longer version:

A. Fulfill your role. If you’re the sponsor, tell me the problem and tell me your solution. If you’re the first negation, give me the stock/common reason for why the sponsor is bad. If you’re early, give and make arguments. If you’re in the middle, do the perfect mix of making and refuting arguments. If you’re late, stop making arguments, refute and crystallize them. Summarize why you won, and weigh impacts.Simple formula, but if you do this, you will rank.

B. Don't give an argument the round won't care about. You're a competitor in this round, meaning you need to adapt to the round and address arguments made in it. You need to make arguments that win your side the round, whether it'd be giving your side a very offensive and strong point or taking away a strong point from the other side. I don't want a unique argument that won't do much for the round, I need you to interact with the round.

- When I judge, remember, I’m comparing arguments and impacts. If you gave a game-changing argument and are getting refuted by everyone, I’m going to like you a lot more than someone who gave a “unique argument”

C. Warrant bucko. Don’t warrant an argument, and I won’t buy it. Don’t just say something and leave me wondering: but why? Give an argument and explain why. Then give me evidence. Then…

D. Impact.Follow rule C and you've explained to me why the argument is true. Now I need to know why I should care about it. If your argument saves lives, mention that and be emotional. When I'm at the end comparing arguments and speakers, I look for the arguments that I like the most, and I like arguments that move my heart. This is the perfect structure (CWDAI FAN HERE!)

Some more general notes:

No disrespect or discrimination or I drop you.

If you know how to weigh, do it. Do my job for me in my ballot.

Evidence ethics is important. Please source your evidence in case I find it fishy. Source name, date, and year is good.

If you think someone is lying regarding evidence, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE call them out. It really gets on my nerve to see honest debaters lose on the flow to cheaters who fake evidence; so do it.

Generic intros you can use for anything sucks. Intros that are specific to the topic are cool. Intros that are funnier are the best. You'll do better if you have a good one.

POs always rank T6, unless you're seriously bad. If you want to place T3 as a PO, then cut out the extra verbiage and speak less. Good POs are quick and keep to themselves, watch Zach Wu if you need an example.

Flipping rewards you if you do ok/good. If you do bad, uh, not much I can do dawg.

Rehash is a skill issue.

Good humor is rewarded. Bad humor, I look the other way. At least you tried, right?

Finally, have fun! That's the right way to win.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For PF,

I don't judge it often, but I'm not a complete newbie. I'm a pretty goofy fusion of lay/flow.I can deal with speed, but if you’re overly reliant on spreading, drop a speech doc and I’ll probably be okay. I draw out args, rebuttals not as much.

Theory kind of funky ngl. If you come to a debate round about student loan debt, and I here you complaining that the fact that your competitor is wearing shoes and that's bad for the environment, like cmon bro. Now if you reason for why the theory is acceptable, I'll care. If I think it is relevant (not that hard to convince me), it probably will win. I think disclosure is poopoo tho.

Tech>truth but don’t be stupid about it. As in, don’t expect to drop 5 goofy args and expect to win when the opp doesn’t respond to 1. Win the event the right way.

Weighing is important; do it in the 2nd half and go slow for it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For any other event,

Make jokes, be funny, and be engaging. I don't know other events too well, but I'm sure I can catch on. Thanks for reading!

Hi! I’m Omkar, and I currently compete in congressional debate at William Fremd HS.

Congressional debate is about presenting effective arguments that further ongoing debate. I basically judge based off that sentence. For presentation, I value uniqueness - be yourself, not whatever congressional debater you've watched a video of. At the end of the day, you'll always sound more believable and interesting by leaning into your style. The arguments you present need to be accurate and effective. I expect clear warranting - sources are good, but stats need to be paired with an understandable reason why. Finally, you need to explain how the arguments you make interact with the debate. Whether that be through weighing, delinking, or turning, it's not a good Congress speech unless it's clearly aware of the round it's being given in. That being said, this doesn't mean I will rank down sponsorships. I understand that the sponsor has a different job than the rest of the round, and I will rate a good sponsorship just as high, if not higher, than I would rate a good mid-round or late-round speech. A sponsor needs to adequately set up the status quo as it relates to the bill, establish the key frameworks that the round will revolve around, and have plenty of offense showing why the aff is the winning side.

Outside of speeches, I value questions that advance the debate through delinking and weighing. If you ask a good question and the speaker is consistently avoiding it, don't waste your 30 seconds. Move on - I will notice when a good question wasn't answered properly. I will rank good POs at minimum whatever is needed to break: “good” means the chamber runs quickly because the PO keeps control and doesn't make mistakes. Be respectful and kind to your fellow debaters, and have fun!

Background: Debate and Speech Coach at East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. Retired Attorney.

Regarding PF:

-Your speed needs to be conversational; if I cannot get it on my flow, you did not say it.

-I need to hear excellent warranting and narrative - I do not prep the PF topic, so make it make sense.

-I consider myself a truth-over-tech judge.

-I like quantifiable impacts.

-Off-time roadmaps are good for me.

-Voters and weighing are key to my ballot.

-Make the Summary and Final Focus what they should be, not a Rebuttal 2.0.

What I am looking for in Congressional Debate:

-an introduction to your speech, a roadmap, and some signposting/transitions are helpful

-arguments that include the necessary evidence to support them

-citations that give me enough information to find them, if needed

-the authorship/sponsorship speech that is polished and should include the status quo, the problem in the status quo, and how your bill solves

-speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech should include refutation and clash with previous speakers - this is debate, not oratory

-questioning should further debate, so favorable or same-sided questions should be avoided

-if you are giving a mid- to late-round speech and do not include refutation, you will rank poorly in front of me

-avoid talking over each other and snark during questioning

-no rehashing of previous points, please

-breaking the cycle of debate is a risky move in front of me; flipping sides or saving your recency for the next piece of legislation is preferable

What I am looking for in a Presiding Officer:

-EFFICEINCY! The more wordy you are, the more your score goes down

-you should announce your procedures thoroughly at the very beginning

-you are not required to offer an electronic precedence and recency spreadsheet. The onus is on the debaters in the chamber to flow the debate and keep track of the P & R

-No auctioneering is needed. Call for a speech, seeing none, call for the next.

-a PO is there to allow the most debate to happen. Narrating the entire round with extra words fails to meet this objective.

-a PO should be able to get through about 12 speeches in an hour. Make that your goal.

-unless the Tournament says otherwise, the NSDA has no rule against breaking cycle and the number of same-sided speeches that can occur. You do not need to admonish the chamber each time it happens.

-You should not call for “Orders of the Day” unless you have a tabled piece of legislation you left on the table. “Orders of the Day” is not a time to state how many speeches and questions the chamber got through. Check out Robert’s Rules of Order if you are curious.

-DO NOT SAY: “Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for a 1-minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." INSTEAD SAY: “Speech time 3:09. Questioners, please indicate.”