Hello everyone!

my name is Asa I am a current coach for Horizon High School in Orlando Florida. During my debate career I did 4 years of LD and PF. Because of that, I’m familiar with techy language and debate jargon but I’ll come out and say my experience in super progressive debate is limited so I’m cool with topical K’s, well warranted theory and counter plans but please make it super clear. Tech > truth unless the round is truly a wash then I’ll be forced to intervene. If it’s truly a wash after that I default neg because aff must prove why we must affirm the resolution. I can keep up with spreading but please if you’re going to spread please be good at it. Just because you emailed me your case does not mean you can mumble over it and expect me to flow all of the stuff emailed.

Procedural stuff. Keep your own time, if you go a few seconds over I’m not gonna be super annoying and cut you off. Just finish your sentence but anything passed that and I’ll stop flowing. Similar thing for cross ex. If you’re asked a question right as the time limit is up, I’ll give the opponent the choice of answering the question. If they answer it cool, if not I’m not holding it against them. If you guys wanna send cases that’s cool with me! I just ask you add me to the email chain.

For preferences, please weigh. Give me a reason to care about your arguments, don’t think that just saying “x is bad” is a good impact because I don’t know exactly how bad x may be. Weighing early and often without just using the buzz words scope and magnitude is an easy path to victory.

For PF especially,

the strongest teams I’ve coached, judged and competed against effectively collapse. Please do not try to win every argument because you will not have time to flesh out any single argument, making it harder for me to vote for you. Please sign post, if you are responding to their de link please tell me you are responding to their de link. Don’t just say “neg is wrong” and then give your card.

This is more of a nit pick thing but people tend to just call every response a turn. Don’t do that. Call it a turn if it actually is a turn but if you’re just proving something is untrue then don’t call it a turn.

I think the best debaters write the flow for me so try to think from that perspective.

Finally my biggest pet peeve by far is arguing during cross ex. Please please use cross ex to ask questions. If you are eager to read a response to their argument, please do not do that during cross because

1. it shows your hand, opponent has extra time to frontline
2. it is a waste of time, your opponent is not going to agree with whatever you’re about to say so why read it?

i apologize if this came off as overly negative. Debate is a super fun activity and I’m really looking forward to judging!

if you have any points that require further clarification feel free to reach out and email me!

azaspades@gmail.com

I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for over 6 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions. Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments. I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments. I want to know that you are listening to the debate and participating.

Please avoid bringing up your computer or tablet when giving speeches. Avoid using chat GPT for your speeches, it is very obvious.

Make sure that you provide data to support your points. And participate in the chamber.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

This is my second year judging Congressional Debate and I've been so impressed with the high level of preparation and presentation! I'm learning more about what makes a great judge, and strive to give specific comments and be completely engaged when judging. I have a child who is a Sophomore debater and she's teaching me a lot, too. I pledge to be impartial, unbiased, and always encouraging. Senators, PLEASE consider the SPEED at which you present your arguments, whether aff or neg - if I can't understand you, I can't give you a good ranking!

Feel free to ask me any questions or clarifications about my paradigm at any time! To email questions: kberg@loyolanyc.org

**My biggest preference is to be a good member of the round. No phones during rounds. You could be the best speaker or performer but if you spend the rest of the round being disrespectful to your fellow competitors, I will take that into account.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

I coach Congress at Loyola School in New York City.

Many of the style notes for policy (below) apply to Congress as well.

1. A note of personal preference: if I see you on social media, snapchat, tiktok, instagram, etc. during a round, I will drop you and report to tab as necessary. I will almost always share this at the beginning of the session. This is a firm, irrevocable line for me and I don't care if you're the best speaker in the room.

2. If you are joining Congress from another form of debate - remember that there are no email chains, judges do not have your sources, and there are no cards. Cite, explain, and analyze all your data accordingly.

3. PO - please ensure all your tech is set up before you start. I would prefer you take the extra minute to get yourself in order rather than rushing and spending the rest of the session scrambling. A smooth and precise PO is better than a quick and messy PO. Please share your preferred method for tracking speeches, recency, etc. and keep it fully available throughout the entire session. Have a plan in case there is no wifi/wifi is bad. The time to learn how to PO on paper is not while you are in the middle of being the PO.The PO is always in the running for top rank and has earned the 1 on my ballot in the past. The PO has also been dropped from my ballot should disaster strike.

4. When I competed, girls were discouraged and dismissed in Congress. I am very happy to see that this is changing, although it is not perfect. I expect all chambers to be run equitably with respect shown for all speakers.

5. Be mindful of the cycle of debate. Presenting a rehashed constructive on the sixth cycle of debate is not productive. Your goal should be furthering the quality of the debate.

6. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech. Bad faith questions reflect poorly on you. Be mindful of how you speak to one another.

7. Love a good crystal however, don't just recap the round and sit down. Extend your side's arguments and refute opposing arguments. Offer your own analysis. Weigh out all the impacts to their fullest. A good crystal should be the cherry on top of a debate not just an intermission.

8. I like to see a variety of speeches. Only giving sponsorships or crystals does not show me diversity in your debating abilities.

9.I do not look kindly on yelling during your speech and especially during questioning. Unless another speaker has personally insulted you, your family, or said something offensive, there is no reason to yell at another speaker. I especially do not look kindly on male debaters yelling exclusively or primarily at female debaters.

10: When I am judging (NOT parliamentarian): I am not in charge of the rules. I do not control the recency. I do not control the PO. Coming up to me and complaining about your recency, that your motion didn't pass, that the docket isn't what you wanted, that the chamber didn't vote in your favor, etc. is futile and does not endear you to me if you persist. If you have issues with your recency, check the sheet, ask the PO and/or parli. If you aren't prepped for all the bills on that session's docket, that's something out of my control.

POLICY/CX/DEBATE PARADIGM:

I coached policy debate at Success Academy. I did not compete in policy as a student.

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I coached/judged - middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate and debate in general.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. Spreading is only as good as your clarity. If you are incoherent, you are not making an argument. Four excellent arguments is stronger than eight okay arguments. I err on the side of what serves the most productive, educational debate.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. or any other oppressive frameworks of thought.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

here’s what i look for in a debater:

1. a thoughtful and clear message
2. clear structure
3. good delivery
4. in depth analysis
5. logic

good luck

4th-year coach in AZ circuit (Congress, PF)

VPF Paradigm

I require email chains to be set up pre-round. Add me:tomelibil@gmail.com. Cards must be cut and tagged properly.

90% flow 10% lay - 2 distinctions:

1) Your flow will be cleaner than mine. I might miss the extension of a warrant or part of a piece of evidence so I *generally* evaluate defense on case and drops/turns on opponents case as stickier than an average nat circ tech judge would.

2) That means your defense and offense has to actually convince me. Having a response on something =/= the argument being dropped in all cases. Teams still SHOULD explain why a bad response is bad.

- Locals: pls test your tech and theory cases on me, they’re more interesting (limited experience with theory though)

- Speed is fine but no spreading

- Cleanness > everything.
- Extend full (abbreviated) link chains and responses through final

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow, 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Keep the off-time road map short. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally, I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech, except for late out rounds. If you notice anything that questions the round's fairness, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

Debaters: I judge Congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. I will drop you for breaking cycle the 2nd time if it could have been reasonably avoided.

I evaluate all aspects of presentation - consistency and strategic variability in volume, emotion, speed, pausing, emphasizing, hand signals, and enunciation. I am not a stickler for fluency as much as most others are. I unapologetically respect late-round speeches more than early rounds, and am especially picky about sponsorships.

POs: I evaluate 3 things: accuracy, speed, and round presence. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber while being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time without fluff. If you're going to add personality, use it sparingly & tastefully.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

I am the Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director before moving over to Speech and Debate.

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp:

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, the environment should be clear and the blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this within the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to the character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking:

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose, and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, your content must be accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF:

• I try to flow, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

• Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

• Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

• I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

• Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

• If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

• Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

Congress:

I see Congress as a debate event first. That means I’m looking for strong, thoughtful argumentation above everything else. If two students are close in terms of arguments, then I’ll look at speaking skills to break the tie. But if your delivery takes away from your message—whether it's too performative, unclear, or disconnected—it’ll be hard for me to rank you higher.

I appreciate when debaters give real context to their arguments. Don’t just list points—help me understand why they matter in this debate. Tell me what’s at stake and why your position should stick with me.

Make sure your speech fits where we are in the round. If it’s time to crystallize, crystallize. I’m paying attention to who’s following the flow of debate and who’s just delivering a script. Being able to adapt shows that you're really present and engaged—and that goes a long way.

As for presiding officers: I give credit where it’s due. If you run a tight chamber, stay fair, and keep things moving, you’ll do well on my ballot. But I do expect you to know what you’re doing—too many errors or loss of control will hurt your ranking.

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. Avoid answering with “I’m sure you can tell me.”

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.

For the love of all things good, stop yelling out “motion.” It’s always out of order. If your motion interrupts, then say the motion directly, “point of order.” Otherwise, you must wait to be recognized.

Presiding Officers:

I will always rank a good presiding officer; however you should know the rules (NSDA, tournament specific, and Robert’s). I keep precedence/recency as well, so I will know if you get it wrong.
STOP asking for motions. It’s always out of order. Your job is to move the chamber forward. There is NOT a motion to open the floor for debate, for example.

Congressional Debate judging: Connect the issue to life experience, bring your unique ideas, back those ideas with relevant facts, insightful quotations and history, and reserve time at the end for a strong conclusion that pulls it all together. Avoid reading a pre-written speech.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge a fair amount but mainly live in congress land.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.
• Clear speaks

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD. (I try to keep up, but I am not speed racer)
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• The arguments need to make logical sense.
• I weigh the case on what I presented.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used to substantiate argumentation and not just provided to have a source.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

Hey everyone!

My name is Aditya Chordiya. I competed in Congressional Debate for 4 years and I graduated from James Logan High School in 2023. I currently am the CPO of Ascend Speech & Debate and an Assistant Coach at James Logan High School.

As a judge, I very much value strong argumentation and round interaction. Any speech after the first cycle should be referencing other speakers in the round and you should be utilizing refutation. While I judge primarily off of argumentation, please make sure that your speaking is both understandable and engaging. Take risks and make sure that your personality stands out. In cross ex, please make sure that you remain respectful and don't yell. I look forward to a great round!

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Judge, Judge Contreras, or just Contreras are fine

pronouns: they/them/theirs (don't call me miss/ma'am)

Head Coach at LC Anderson HS in Texas

Email chain: theedebatecoach@gmail.com

Order:

1. General Comments
2. PF
3. LD
4. Congress
5. Miscellaneous

1. General Comments

Trigger warnings are a norm you should be taking part in. Allowing competitors the chance to opt-out is not only encouraged but extremely important for making this activity safe. This is true for every event but more true for some- DI, looking at you!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. I have a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!!

Respect and safety are crucial to speech and debate. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, or any other kind of discrimination in or outside of round. If another competitor or participant is making you feel unsafe, you can always bring it to me. That behavior in round will be reflected in your speaks and on the ballot.

I love novices, I love fundamentals of debate. I will answer any questions after round to the best of my ability if we are respectful and wanting to learn. That also means do NOT dunk on novices in front of me. Reading 6 off on a novice might win you the ballot but I will tank your speaks.

I don’t disclose speaks.

Number responses!! the art of a clean flow/speech seems to be lost or at least elusive.

Broke: is anyone not ready?

Woke: Is everyone ready?

2. Public Forum

I’m fully flay. While I will evaluate most things, a K in PF is an uphill battle. I’m used to LD-style K’s and they have the advantage of longer speech times that PF doesn’t have. My flowing is strong, if I miss an argument it’s because it’s blippy. I don’t use the doc in PF because you should not be going fast enough to necessitate that.

My least favorite trend in PF is how cards are cut. Please include at least a paragraph of context. Your tagline should be an actual claim! “Furthermore” “concerningly” and “luckily” are NOT taglines. This is bad evidence ethics and if it comes down to a card v. card debate, yours will lose.

My second least favorite trend is insufficient extensions.

Extensions mean: tag/author and warranting. You don’t need to reread the card, you DO need to restate the claim and warrant.

I like theory. TFA rules allow tournaments to decide if judges can vote on disclosure. If allowed by tournament hosts, I will evaluate it.

3. Lincoln Douglas

I’m much more lay in LD. I will use the doc to flow but only if I’m in outrounds on a tech panel. In prelims, you should adapt. Many debaters believe they can spread, few debaters can achieve those speeds with clarity. Lay appeal is important, persuasiveness is important, style is important. If I’m your judge, that’s a great opportunity to improve upon those skills! I will reward adaptation with high speaks.

I like stock/policy arguments, theory/T, counterplans and am most comfortable with these arguments. I love framework debate.

Ks are really interesting to me, you will need to do more judge instruction and comparative to win on one but I will absolutely vote on the Kritik.

4. Congress

I love judging congress and don’t get to do it often. I listen just as much to content as I do to presentation and both factor into your rank. I appreciate a full buy-in to the congress LARPing (AGDs about your interns and time on the floor) and tend to prefer those to personal anecdotes. Intros are important, they need to be relevant to the topic, concise, cleanly delivered (ideally memorized), and impactful.

2 points, 2-3 sources per point.

Clash!!! It’s called congressional debate for a reason!

Good questions are everything! Being active in the round sets you apart from your fellow representatives.

I reward strong PO skills with high ranks in prelims. In finals, I do my best to fairly evaluate the PO vs. the speakers.

5. Miscellaneous

I occasionally judge World Schools Debate. In Worlds, I don't have as much technical knowledge about the nuances of WSD but will flow, watch for extensions, responses, and weighing/worlds comparatives. I will evaluate the round based on the argumentation, evidence, and logic. Prepare to do judge instruction and explain WSD jargon. Be so explicit about why your side and your world is better than your opponent's.

One time at a national circuit tournament, a PFer asked me if I "could evaluate complicated arguments"- don't do this. I will evaluate the most complex argument if you, the debater, can simplify, explain, defend, and weigh said arguments in the round. If I can't follow your case, it's either: a) so tangentially related that it's irrelevant, b) not clearly explained, or c) lacking links in your logic or evidence chain that would make it make sense.

I'm 100% a game judge, the flow is like a chess board and it is your job to navigate it with whatever tools you have at your disposal. You can run anything; Theory, Topicality, Ks, CP, DA/AD/Plans/KPlans but for all of those you need to give a "why" and impact calc for everything, fail to do that and you will lose the round.

That being said stock issues are inherent to an argument, if you don't solve for anything or you can't show significance then you will also lose. Topicality is loose for me but again if you fail to solve for something or show it's significance then you lose.

Spread as fast as you want, I was reading at 340 wpm once upon a memory. If you turn into a mumble rapper like Post Malone then you are not communicating effectively and you'll have stuff drop on the flow. Clear and fast is fine, murmuring quickly is not fine. When in doubt slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Too often debaters are reliant on judges reading their card for them to put them on the flow rather than conveying the information. If there is something in the debate that is the razors edge that will make or break the round then I will evaluate it but that is rarely ever the case (I have only seen it once, same source cut two different ways).

My default settings:

I will hear theory arguments if you are deeply against any of the following but otherwise this is how I vote.

Disclosure has to be consensual prior to the round but when you are giving the constructive what are you really gaining from not exchanging? Plus it is in the NSDA manual you have to produce evidence for your opponent at their request.

Aff gets fiat for world building otherwise the debate can't happen.

Neg gets conditionality to truth test with multiple worlds.

General sportsmanship should be observed. I was a debater, I promise you I know abuse when I see it. If your opponent checks it and you don't have some good reason for trying to push that envelope you'll lose. Be excellent to each other.

I do private coaching but I also care deeply about the debate community so please feel free to reach-out with questions after your rounds. coachmike@citronoline.org

Private Coaching Link

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

B.S. Ecology from Arizona State University

M.L.S. Environmental Law from Sandra Day O'Connor Law College

M.S. Geospatial Intelligence from Johns Hopkins University

Certified Fraud Examiner

Debate Director of the Citron Online Speech and Debate District

Hello all,

First of all, I am a lay judge and haven't judged many tournaments on the national circuit. Please don't use Congress lingo that I'm not going to understand.

I am happy to be here to judge the awesome competitors and learn a thing or two along with you folks.

I look for fact-based debates and reference provided where its appropriate. It is key to engage your audience to make sure the key take aways are communicated and everyone follow your reasoning.

I also would like to see good refutation between speakers after the first couple speakers.

Updated as of March 6th, 2025 for TFA

Hello, howdy, and how do you do, I'm Jomi Epoyun

I graduated from Northeast High School in Oakland Park, FL in 2017 and Florida Atlantic University with my undergrad in Comp Sci and Poli Sci and currently finishing my master's in Data Science in Public Policy and working in data analysis with specifics in data visualizations for political campaigns and research while coaching mainly congressional debate and extemporaneous speaking since 2018

Why I know what I am doing:

Since 2019 I have coached someone in the final round of every major circuit tournament Congressional Debate has to offer including last year's NSDA National tournament and TFA tournament in Congressional Debate

I have also been trusted to judge major elim rounds in extemp and congress including the 2023 NSDA Final round in International Extemp

In other words, if you know who I am, I know what I am doing, just ask around

What I look for in rounds:

This has changed over the years but a lot of my core principles still remain the same for the most part

I try to be as balanced of a content/speaking judge that I can so while at the same time I will be looking for if you are giving the most well-warranted, characterized, and impacted speech, I will also look for your ability to speak well through diverse emotional variation, authentic speaking, good pausing, tone and pitch fluctuations and inflections

Basically, I am a warrant guy just as much of a "way you say the warrant" guy

Speaking position does matter to be as well as I grade the speak, because late rounds delivered in the constructive phase of the round are just as bad as constructive speeches given in the late

Basically "DO YOUR JOB" relative to what is expected at your speaking position and what has happened in the round and therefore what you need to clash with in the round

I am the BAR guy as well so this means I am a sucker for fire rhetoric. Creative rhetoric. Rhetoric that connects that even makes some pop culture, show, movie, song references. Just something that ain't the standard congress rhetoric, especially because if I am at the tournament I have probably come a long way and I don't want to come a long way for something I could hear at my local tournaments

At the end of the day just show me the most amount of YOU and don't do the regular stuff every congressional debater and extemper

She/her

Coach at Plano East Senior High (2018 - current)

I like reading, quilting, and hockey (go Stars!) Also, I am learning Finnish (Minulla on oranssi kissa ja yksi poika ja pidän velhoista. Onnea!)

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: I judge and coach extemp more than any other event. It is my favorite event. If speech 1 has amazing content but bad fluency, and speech 2 is beautifully fluent but all the content is made up, outdated, or wrong, I would rank Speech 1 higher. If you don't answer the ACTUAL question, you will not be ranked high, no matter what. I will be randomly source/fact checking 1 source per speech, plz don't make up your sources.

In Interp: you should be making an argument with your chosen piece. Explain that argument in the intro!! I do not like giving time signals in Interp, I will give them if you ask for them but I will be grumpy about it. The piece should be exactly the same every round, so the time should be about the same. Also giving time signals distracts me from fully evaluating and taking in your performance.

In OO/Info: be unique. Think outside the box. If you are using a traditional topic, put a spin on it. If I don't learn something new during your speech, I probably won't rank you high. Same as above about time signals.

Everything you do in round is judge-able!!! Be a good steward of this activity. Be quiet while judges are writing feedback between speakers. You should NOT be on your phone during round. Your commentary on or critiques of other competitors/performances are what we call "inside thoughts" and should not be uttered into existence.

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I generally do not like Kritiks in LD. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem - lazy debating. If you choose to run a K in an LD round I am judging, slow down and explain your arguments in your own words.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory*** & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit - you still should slow down probably and explain your args really really well. I have less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge. My favorite thing about policy debate is when we have fun - read an unexpected case or a crazy off.

***Theory is fine, except for disclosure theory. Not a fan. For almost a century, competitive high school debate has existed successfully and educationally without needing to read your opponent's case ahead of time.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible. Especially don't be rude or go ham when you have an obvious experience advantage (4yr debater vs 1yr).

FOR ALL EVENTS IN BOTH SPEECH AND DEBATE

Things you shouldn't say in a round in front of me (or really at all tbh): r*tarded (it's a slur), anything demeaning to or derogatory about teen moms (I was one)

When rounds finish, don't say how bad you did or how you "definitely lost" while your judges are sitting right there literally still making a decision. You never know, maybe we thought you won.

If you must have an email chain, include me: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu (see above note about how I think you should be able to debate without reading your opponent's case)

I look forward to hearing you speak!

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 listen to every speaker with open mind and no judgment. I rate every speaker for their speech introduction, delivery, content, data / evidence and potential impact of their argument. In addition, I look at how they ask / answer questions, if they are creative in their approach to stand out, follow parliamentary procedures, bring in fresh perspective to the argument and use the opposing sides argument to their advantage.

I go by Xiaohui. I am an Electrical Engineer. In last two years, I mainly judged Congress , some Extemp and Pf. I judged Congress twice at Berkeley Invitional, and once at Washington State.

Congress: Argumentation -~3 cycles of constructives max, and please focus on addressing actual arguments after that -The author/sponsors job is to tell me what the bill does, and why it uniquely solves an issue in the SQUO. "Not enough funding" as a 1st neg is the worst argument that you can make because that is so nonunique. Unless it needs 10000000000000000000 dollars please dont bring this up. -Talk about SQUO but dont yap for 3 minutes about how the squo is bad/good -Try and extemp your speeches, using taglines and such. This goes a long way -Why does your argument matter? A random impact about how a bill will cause parrots to go extinct is not enough -Unique arguments are great, but please try and progress the debate. If the main issue is "will this bill save American lives??!?!?" please dont jump in with a "unique" argument about how the bill drives up the price of kiwis which causes the collapse of the New Zealand agricultural economy. I will always rank people who can weigh their impacts higher than those who can't -I've probably heard every piece of canned rhetoric on the face of this planet. Please refrain from using canned rhetoric unless you like getting dropped. Same applies to reading other people's speeches verbatim- I wouldn't even consider that debate. ***It's completely okay to brainstorm ideas with others/prepping together -I like debates that go deep instead of wide ,if that makes any sense. I'd prefer a 4th cycle speaker who can cut to the central issue in the debate, weigh the impacts of the aff v. neg, and tie arguments back to the bill over a beautifully given 1a speech. Remember- it's called Congressional Debate for a reason Delivery/Presentation -I don't typically care what mode of delivery that you use. Ipads, notecards, legal pads, are all fine by me. Holding anything up to your face and reading off of it, however, will not earn good ranks from me. -Bulky gaming laptops are just a.... no, when it comes to delivery. While I won't auto-drop you just for using a bulky laptop for delivery, you probably won't earn good ranks from me. I also recognize that accessibility in debate is important, and not everyone can afford an ipad/tablet just for debate, but using a legal pad is both sleek and affordable. You can buy them as loose units on amazon for 1-2 dollars apiece -Memorized and entirely extemped speeches are w aura. I'm impressed by impromptued speeches (if they fulfill the criteria that I've listed out above) Miscellaneous -I give POs between 3-7 (IF it is a chamber in which one competitor POs for the entire session), unless I think you're exceptionally great or extremely inefficient as PO. I don't require you to memorize the entire 200 page book on Robert's rules of Order, but a good PO should be able to gauge the chamber, and be able to tell if a chamber is ready for a recess, or ready to move the previous question. If I dont give feedback for POing you were chill TLDR: the less i have to intervene, the higher the PO is ranked -More speeches doesn't necessarily mean better ranks. I will pref 1 brilliant speech over 2 speeches that's just repeating previous arguments. If you have an opportunity to speak and decide not to, only to give less speeches than other people in the round, however, I will dock points from you. -Please don't say "principally", it's a pet peeve of mine and adds nothing to the debate, and it doesnt make you sound like an intellectual. Same applies to "on my first word" or anything similar, as I feel like it ruins the vibe of the chamber, and is not in accordance with Congress decorum -When questioning in cross, don't hog the time and make a speech of your own. Questions should be concise and cut to the chase. Questions that relate to your speech, or will pave the path for your argument, are a plus -Split between argumentation/presentation/cross is 60/20/20 for me. Points on speeches (Washington total of 6 points per speech) are 2 points evidence/citations, 2 points analysis/reasoning (why it matters), 1 point rhetoric, 1 point delivery/presentation. And yes, I weigh argumentation more heavily than presentation in what everyone perceives to be an over glorified speech event. Keep this in mind. Extemp -Pretty much same as Congress when it comes to delivery. Dont feel like you're stuck to the ground, move around a bit! -use 4-6 sources and answer the question. A simple yes/no answer is perfectly okay if you have solid analysis. I'm also not a stickler when it comes to citing the time of publishment for sources- citing the year and month is fine by me. -Don't abuse the grace. I anticipate your speech to be 7 minutes, so only use the grace to finish up if you need. -The average middle schooler should be able to understand your argument and the reasoning behind it, as well as why it matters Pf? oh yeah they seem to love putting me in pf a lot just treat me as a "flay judge".... i flow args on onenote and ill probably be on clash of clans during cross... weigh ur args and lmk why i should vote for u. also link n warrant your args big big impact is okay but extend ur link or else nuclear war doesnt matter i default squo if everything is wash

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

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

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

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

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

LD DEBATE:

1) I am a lay LD judge, which means I am not familiar with the tricks, K, theory this kind of techniques related to the tech debate. What you need to do is lay a logic flow for me to follow. Do not spread, too much information won't win me over, clarity is the key to get my vote.

2) I am open to evaluate any claim, as long as it is logically and adequately warranted. If I cannot understand your logic, I am not going to vote for you.

3) I always look for the impact of your claims/ contentions. I will vote for the side clearly has bigger impact.

4) If you drop an argument during a round, , you are losing my vote.

5) Make most of the cross check and prep accordingly.

6) You will lose my vote if caught using distorted or falsified evidence either by me or by your opponent. Normally I won't call for a card to verify, it should be the burden of your opponent.

CONGRESS:

(1) Always keep in mind that you are representing the constituents of your community. Anything you presented in your debate should help / benefit the constituents. If the impact of certain bill is for an outer space, you are losing me here. You should imagine me as a typical voter in the community, please persuade me as what you would do to a constituent. I can only cast my vote when I am convinced that this bill will make my life better or protect my right.

(2) I am a firm believer of "show not tell" method. If you are presenting an opinion, this opinion needs to be logically and statistically supported. The evidence plays a significant role in my judging. Also, the clarity of your speech is very important in my ranking. Do not repeat the same point multiple times (remember that call back is not repeat).

(3) Treat the congressional debate as a speech round, when you talk, you can use a pad to guide you, but don't read off a device, like in the LD debate.

(4) I am treating POs fairly easy. All POs need to realize that they are leaders, they should know when to table a topic and move the debate forward. Do NOT make a speech while sitting, always engage in the debate round.

(5) I value truth over technique, the delivery of the speech is secondary.

Content: evidence, critical thinking, in depth analysis of the bill

Delivery: energy, articulate, smooth story telling, respectful

Reaction: response to the room, ask and address questions

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

My name is Spencer Humphreys. I am a 5 year head coach with 4 years experience competing in Humorous interpretation, one year competing in Dramatic interp and Duo interp on the high school and college level. When judging interpretation events I focus on distinct voices, facial expressions to match the emotion you are trying to convey with each character, and clean blocking.

I do not consider cartwheels and flips "creative blocking".

Refutation, commentary, logic and argument extension are my primary voters. I am a tabula rasa judge for most forms of debate.

Email for chain: Duste04[at]gmail[dot]com

LD - I enjoy/prefer having a traditional framework set up in LD but if you can link your debate theory and turn a case that is acceptable. If the arguments are accessible and we understand the ground of the debate and can create clash then there is no issue. I am not crazy about spreading and if I find that I can't hear/understand the arguments in this form of debate it makes it hard to flow.

PF - This form of debate should be accessible to the average citizen. Speed should be moderate at most and there should not be an expectation for a plan/policy or alternate. I weigh more heavily on impacts than framework but having a weaved in framework throughout the case is a huge plus. I flow and weigh cross.

Biggest pet peeve:

{First speaker starts} Reads a questionable card in 1AC

{Neg during cross} can you summarize the card...?

{First speaker} I can't summarize it but I can read the card again.

Congress: I am on year three of congress judging and have a decent grasp of Robert's rules. I enjoy it immensely and prefer to judge/weigh based on the NSDA Debate Guide rubric. For example, the book lists that representatives should not infringe on the chamber's time - stop before the grace period. I weigh questions in your overall score ESPECIALLY if you are tied for speech scores. By the Third speech on a bill there should be active clash in your speech and you should not just be rehashing old points or reading a canned speech. I love a good clarity/summary speech. If you are double entered and leave the chamber I do not let that affect your score for questioning BUT your goal is to be present and move the chamber you can't do that if you are not in attendance.

WSD

I am looking for presentation/style, organization, and of course well explained content. Please make sure to respectfully wave questions - I prefer civility and clarity. In terms of evidence, ensure that you focus on how the evidence fits in your argument / substantive and whether or not it is relevant or credible for the side.

BQ

Framework and definitions are pivotal. I know it is the same case all year but I do my best to evaluate the round as if I have not heard the topic. Unless you agree to FW or Definitions then there should be time set aside in each speech to remind me why yours is preferred or superior and how it helps your observations and contentions. Don't spread - be civil - be organized.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1.) Please dont go too fast. Take the time to ensure that the points you are making are being well understood by me and the opponents. Debates and presentations in real life are NOT about incoherently cramming lots of points, rather its about a clear and concise articulation of a few compelling points with a cogent delivery. These competitions are meant to prepare you for the real world.

2.) Summarize the topic and your position at the onset, to frame your argumentation.

3.) Please cite sources/references to back up all facts that you use in your argumentation.

4.) Be respectful to the opponents even if they appear underprepared, or have weaker arguments.

5.) Stick to the allotted time limits.

I look for cogent argument effective delivery and a clear thought process to reach conclusions.

Hey, I'm Mike Kaiser! I competed in Congress on the national circuit for 4 years and graduated in May of 2023; I'm now an undergraduate college student studying finance at the University of Florida. My biggest takeaway from this activity was that there are an infinite amount of ways that to communicate a message effectively, but the best way will always be the one that highlights your individuality, so be original!

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy (and TLDR): I reward speakers that explain why their arguments are true as well as prove that they are true. This means a good argument includes plenty of warranting behind it, solid evidence to prove it, and proper analysis to link it together. I believe that every speaker has a unique role depending on how early or late the round is and I will rank the speakers that do the best job of fulfilling their roles (i.e. don't give a constructive as the last speech of the round). Finally, make sure that your speaking is engaging and passionate. In order to convince me that I should care about what you're saying, you have to sound like you care about what you're saying. Think of your round as an opportunity for me to get to know you, throw in a little personality.

Originality:As the great Zachary Wu once said, Congress is a game of raw persuasion. This just means that you don't have to abide by the conventions of Congress in order to be good, you just have to do the best job of convincing me why your argument is the most important in the round. I don't want you to give copy-paste speeches that you've given before nor extensively rehearsed speeches that sound like ChatGPT. In fact, I would rather you write a speech from scratch in-round if it means you will adapt to the round, include refutation, and explain your advocacy properly. I rank speeches that are good in the context of the round, not just good in isolation.

Humor: I love humor and will reward it if done properly. Humor in Congress is at its best when the jokes are professional and the role of Congressperson is maintained. That being said, if you make me laugh with a "less-than-professional" joke I will still reward you because I have a sense of humor.

Presiding Officers:If you want my 1, you better not make any mistakes. I rank presiding officers that are assertive, but not rude, and effectively manage the round. The best presiding officers are not yappers, they are quick and concise. Making a couple of mistakes will probably still land you in my ranks, depending on how you handle them.

Flipping:I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

Weighing: Do it, please. I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

Refutation: Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Most importantly, have fun, be yourself, and don't be rude to anyone. And be confident.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at michel.s.kaiser@gmail.com anytime.

I am parent judge. My daughter is a congressional debater. I like follow the arguments in the debate. So keeping it at a reasonable pace helps.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for the last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. A well-addressed bill agenda in the first speech is a critical start, and I value good first speeches on both sides if they address the core part of debating points. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I value students who participate actively in the debate with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

Congress:

Absolutely no spreading.

Passion is a part of persuasion, how can I believe you if I don't buy you believe in your own argument.

If there is a tie, I will use great questioning as a tiebreaker.

Sponsorship/Authorship speech: Your job is to setup the debate, explain why the bill was written, what the sections do, the importance/effect of the Important Sections of the Bill. You provide the Roadmap for the rest of the round.

If you are not in the first cycle because I see you, you write notes of what your opponents say and then you never explain why they are wrong. IF your speech RESPONDS to opposing side then make sure to truly make the edits to make that a cohesive clash

Clash is when you are not simply listing the opposing side, but actually responding to them and explaining why your argument is superior, simply put the kids who do this in the later rounds typically get placed top 8 on my ballot.

I start Presiding Officer at 1st, you have to be that much better to surpass them if they do their job effectively.

Presiding Officer: This is not a punishment, this is a responsibility. Keeping precedent in speeches and direct questioning is only way to maintain fairness and that is why your biggest focus is here and comes with the most peril, getting that order right should be your PRIMARY focus at all times. If you treat the responsibility of being P.O. as such I will rank you as such.

During Questioning, yes keep precedent but make sure two things are also occurring 1. They are asking questions not making another speech and 2. Reduce prefacing

During Round: When people don't stand for a cycle you do not become a passive watcher as a competitor takes control during a break, that's your job as P.O. to explain that it's beneficial for debate to our constituents that they hear their representatives.

I personally don't understand students who make jokes then immediately turn into some horrible topic about mass detention camps or brutal dictators. Some topics allow for humor, some do not. Not a big scoring thing just something I find odd about Congressional Debaters.

Looking bored in round, using your phone, etc. is ground to get ranked lower or not ranked at all. You are Representatives in the U.S. Congress, heck you are supposed to BETTER than actual Congress, act like it. Straight up, during breaks, you act a fool, curse, sound like a buffoon it is making an impact on how a judge may listen to you later on. This is an event that is part acting as well so play the part. You are not a high school student who works at Starbucks or has homework problems so don't say it.

Congressional Debate, done right, is the the best event in Speech and Debate because real debate can occur and evolve over the course of 1 hour to hour and a half debate. It is the worst event when kids are reading their speeches, saying the same thing for over an hour and refuse to try something different.

Debate:

Most above applies as well, no spreading, passion, great questioning.

You cannot simply refer to a card, you must elaborate and connect the card to your/opponents arguments and must be clear in that connection.

I’m a parent judge, who has been judging a few competitions every semester since late 2023. I have primarily judged local/regional tournaments in the California Coast Forensic League area.

When deciding ranks, I tend to focus on a few key areas:

• Back Up Your Claims: If you make an assertion, tell me where you got it from (cite your source!) and quickly explain why that source proves your point. Strong evidence makes strong arguments.
• Talk, Don't Read: Practice your speeches so you can deliver them confidently with good eye contact. Notes are fine for reminders, but your delivery should feel natural and engaging.
• Handle Questions Well: Show you know your stuff during Q&A. Answer directly and thoughtfully. Asking good, probing questions scores points too.
• Engage with Each Other: The best debaters don't give speeches in isolation. Refer back to what others have said – agree, disagree (and explain why!), or build on their points. Show me you're contributing to the flow of the debate.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Who I Am: I was a competitor in both Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in high school with greater focus in Congressional Debate during my Junior and Senior year. I continued debate through both Parliamentary Debate and Mock Trial while attending school. I've attended and coached at numerous debate camps through my tenure as well as coach for my previous high school's debate program after graduating from college.

What's Important:

- Respect: Be kind to one another and treat each other with respect. At the end of the day, every competitor, judge, and tournament staff are working the best they can to make tournaments happen so students have the ability to compete. While being nice doesn't make you a better debater necessarily, being rude or mean certainly will not help your case at all.

In Congress, there's a performance element and an argumentation element to each speech.

• Do not speak quickly and make sure to enunciate so you are clearly heard. Make sure that your tone doesn't change for your flow but that your tone changes for emphasis. I may be old fashioned, but if you're reading a script, I'm not going to be impressed and you will not score well. Keep reading to a minimum for things like important numbers in data or comprehensive refutations.
• Regarding argumentation, at each contention's core there needs to be a clear warrant and impact. Avoid making assumptions of what we should/shouldn't know by being explicit with your logical steps to connect each cause and effect. Impacts should be the consequences that are reasons we should pass/fail a bill. Regardless of being the first or last speaker, at very high levels of debate I expect there to be clash so make sure your refutations are clear. Explain another speaker's warrant/impact and then break it down/outweigh; otherwise I won't consider it a refutation
• Also remember, we are debating legislation - not just high level ideas. Your warrants will be missing links if you are not tying in specific actions outlined in the legislation to your evidence, warrants, and impacts. I want to hear causational logic to prove somethingwill happen if we pass/fail. Relying on a source and saying, "Harvard Research Study said this would happen" provides me no solvency unless if you explain why it would happen.

Most importantly, make sure to have fun with the activity. Yes, it is a competition - however, there's also a big community of people who love the activity enough to spend years doing it so make some friends and have fun! Bring in positive energy into each round and you'll naturally be likable.

I am a parent judge and have judged several congressional debate tournaments before.

I am an experienced parent judge, and I have been judging Congress for 4 years on all levels - district, league, state, national (Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, ASU, Glen, MLK) - and seen some of the best kids in the circuit.

General: I value clash, round/audience engagement, presentation and referencing prior speakers. Do not give constructive speeches late in the round. Be assertive, but not aggressive. Keep questioning respectful and short - please do not preface.

Authors/Sponsors: explain the bill, why it works/solvency, what it does, why it’s needed. Authors can rank highly too! If there are final appeals, use this opportunity to summarize the round effectively.

POs: Be organized and know procedure! If there are elections, you should not be running unless you truly know your rules. I try to rank PO’s if you run a fast, fair, and effective chamber - PO’s don’t have to be perfect, but try your best not to mess up precedence and recency as it slows down the round.

Best of luck!

When judging Congress, I care deeply about the quality of the arguments that you are presenting within the round. My ballot in many ways will be determined by who is bringing the logical argument that is factually supported.

Don’t rehash, share new information or expand the debate.

Make sure you’re confident with your delivery - I prefer an extemporaneous style. If you’re just reading your speech but not “giving it” I have no clue if you wrote it or your coach. Ultimately this is a high school event so make sure your writing your own speeches (this probably doesn’t need to be said).

Present yourself in a respectable manner, don’t need theatrics to be ranked by me.

For pos you need to be clear about the system that you’re using within the round. I don’t care what system you use but make sure you clearly state. I usually rank pos generously as long as you are effective. Also make sure you are trying to get people’s names correct.

A little about myself:

I go by Mike, and I'm currently a finance major at the University of Washington. In High School I mainly did Congress and Extemp, with a bit of impromptu and PF as well. I've qualified to the UKTOC in Congress and semifinaled nationals- I'd like to think that I have at least somewhat of a grasp on my main events lol

Do feel free to point out any standards I use for judging that you believe to be unfair though

Congress:

Argumentation

-~3 cycles of constructives max, and please focus on addressing actual arguments after that

-The author/sponsors job is to tell me what the bill does, and why it uniquely solves an issue in the SQUO. "Not enough funding" as a 1st neg is the worst argument that you can make because that is so nonunique. Unless it needs 10000000000000000000 dollars please dont bring this up.

-Talk about SQUO but dont yap for 3 minutes about how the squo is bad/good

-Try and extemp your speeches, using taglines and such. This goes a long way

-Why does your argument matter? A random impact about how a bill will cause parrots to go extinct is not enough

-Unique arguments are great, but please try and progress the debate. If the main issue is "will this bill save American lives??!?!?" please dont jump in with a "unique" argument about how the bill drives up the price of kiwis which causes the collapse of the New Zealand agricultural economy. I will always rank people who can weigh their impacts higher than those who can't

-I've probably heard every piece of canned rhetoric on the face of this planet. Please refrain from using canned rhetoric unless you like getting dropped. Same applies to reading other people's speeches verbatim- I wouldn't even consider that debate. ***It's completely okay to brainstorm ideas with others/prepping together

-I like debates that go deep instead of wide ,if that makes any sense. I'd prefer a 4th cycle speaker who can cut to the central issue in the debate, weigh the impacts of the aff v. neg, and tie arguments back to the bill over a beautifully given 1a speech. Remember- it's called Congressional Debate for a reason

Delivery/Presentation

-I don't typically care what mode of delivery that you use. Ipads, notecards, legal pads, are all fine by me. Holding anything up to your face and reading off of it, however, will not earn good ranks from me.

-Bulky gaming laptops are just a.... no, when it comes to delivery. While I won't auto-drop you just for using a bulky laptop for delivery, you probably won't earn good ranks from me. I also recognize that accessibility in debate is important, and not everyone can afford an ipad/tablet just for debate, but using a legal pad is both sleek and affordable. You can buy them as loose units on amazon for 1-2 dollars apiece

-Memorized and entirely extemped speeches are w aura. Never been able to be completely independent from pads myself, so I'm impressed by impromptued speeches (if they fulfill the criteria that I've listed out above)

Miscellaneous

-I give POs between 3-7 (IF it is a chamber in which one competitor POs for the entire session), unless I think you're exceptionally great or extremely inefficient as PO. I don't require you to memorize the entire 200 page book on Robert's rules of Order, but a good PO should be able to gauge the chamber, and be able to tell if a chamber is ready for a recess, or ready to move the previous question. If I dont give feedback for POing you were chill

TLDR: the less i have to intervene, the higher the PO is ranked

-More speeches doesn't necessarily mean better ranks. I will pref 1 brilliant speech over 2 speeches that's just repeating previous arguments. If you have an opportunity to speak and decide not to, only to give less speeches than other people in the round, however, I will dock points from you.

-Please don't say "principally", it's a pet peeve of mine and adds nothing to the debate, and it doesnt make you sound like an intellectual. Same applies to "on my first word" or anything similar, as I feel like it ruins the vibe of the chamber, and is not in accordance with Congress decorum

-When questioning in cross, don't hog the time and make a speech of your own. Questions should be concise and cut to the chase. Questions that relate to your speech, or will pave the path for your argument, are a plus

-Split between argumentation/presentation/cross is 60/20/20 for me. Points on speeches (Washington total of 6 points per speech) are 2 points evidence/citations, 2 points analysis/reasoning (why it matters), 1 point rhetoric, 1 point delivery/presentation. And yes, I weigh argumentation more heavily than presentation in what everyone perceives to be an over glorified speech event. Keep this in mind.

Extemp
-Pretty much same as Congress when it comes to delivery. Dont feel like you're stuck to the ground, move around a bit!

-use 4-6 sources and answer the question. A simple yes/no answer is perfectly okay if you have solid analysis. I'm also not a stickler when it comes to citing the time of publishment for sources- citing the year and month is fine by me.

-Don't abuse the grace. I anticipate your speech to be 7 minutes, so only use the grace to finish up if you need.

-The average middle schooler should be able to understand your argument and the reasoning behind it, as well as why it matters

Other IES

If they put me in for other events besides from Congress and Extemp that probably means they're desperate for judges. Yall r honestly more qualified than me in judging these IEs. Be swag and cool and chill and u r fine

Pf?

oh yeah they seem to love putting me in pf a lot just treat me as a "flay judge".... i flow args on onenote and ill probably be on clash of clans during cross... weigh ur args and lmk why i should vote for u. also link n warrant your args

big big impact is okay but extend ur link or else nuclear war doesnt matter

i default squo if everything is wash

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

My email is mart4516@gmail.com, please add me to the email chain. Feel free to ask for feedback.

I've been judging for 7 years out of high school. I have judged TOC bid tournaments in CX/LD/PF.

I am also an experienced parli for Congress.

Most debaters will tell you I am strict but caring. I value debaters mental health and safety above all else but I also will move a round forward if debaters aren't on task.

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD. DO NOT BE HOMOPHOBIC, RACIST, SEXIST, TRANSPHOBIC OR A JERK. I will drop you.

Tournament Specific:

TOC: This is the creme de la creme of debaters. Be prepped for both sides. Murphy's Law applies.

Congress

Most of this is from the point that I am the parliamentarian, if I am scoring just read General

General:

Varsity/TOC: I expect you to be prepped on both sides of the bills. This is a debate activity, be prepared on both sides. If cycle is broken before the last speech I will take note, if you are able to jump in and switch sides you will rise in my ranks, I take note of sponsorship speeches, questions, switching sides, and other things. Even if you aren't selected for questioning I am aware of your participation in the round.

Nov/JV: I hope you had prepped both sides but if we have to break cycle it is not the worst thing. I am aware that this is new to you and I am here to support you much more than you think. Feel free to raise Point of Inquiry and ask questions.

PO's:

PO's if done well will rank in my breaks. I generally allow 1 mistake per hour. You will be evaluated on your ability to manage the chamber. You are well within your rights to kick/censor spectators. If you feel uncomfortable you are more than welcome to ask me to and I will not hold it against you especially at larger tournaments.

I try not to intervene as much as I can, I am keeping track of your mistakes on my sheet.

If this is a novice/Middle School round, I will hand hold you through it if you need it. I want you to be successful. If there are no people I will help you by letting you view my Parli sheet. I dislike debaters who abuse POI when there is a new PO especially if they were forced/voluntold to PO.

Rule Violations:

I am fine with adjudicating evidence challenges, if the point is raised I usually default to contacting tab and pushing back the hard stop in order to accommodate the evidence challenge.

TFA:

While I have never debated on the TFA I am versed in terms of the rules specific to the circuit. If I make a mistake I will not hold it against a student to point of order me.

Policy, LD, PF

TLDR:

I actually have zero preference on what you read. K, T, Theory, CP, DA's, I am fine with. I mix tech and truth. If the truth is common knowledge (9 out of 10 people on the street know) I will default to the truth, otherwise I will default to tech. I am fine with tricks in LD. You can run IVI's, RVI's really whatever and I will do my best to understand it.

Topicality:

Yes, I will evaluate this as an apriori. For the aff I have a reasonable threshold, if you gut check meet I will probably be fine with it, unless it is dropped. Aff's that reject the resolution I am fine with as well. But you do need to be able to debate the T debate.

K's:

I understand most economic based K's (Neolib, Cap). I have a good understanding of (Antiblackness, Orientalism, Feminism and Set Col). Some of the more "eccentric" K's, Baudrillard-esque, I will do my best to understand but you are much better off prefing a judge who has a background.

I am fine with an aff being K, try to explain why you are doing such though, which you should be doing anyways.

For my sanity, please do not assume I know your lit base. If you want to check if I do just shoot me an email and I will be transparent.

Theory:

Sure, run it. Disclosure, tech check, if it is in front of me I will have to evaluate, but please for the sake of me prove in-round abuse. Most of the time I default theory to being apriori or an IVI.

Misc:

I am very much a laid back judge. Spreading is fine, send me a speech doc, I will yell clear 3 times and then I just won't flow.

If it is a TOC tournament or a break round I am prone to do much less work for you in terms of impact weighing. If it is a novice round I will do much more work.

If you are winning or there is a clear experience difference (looking at you Open divisions) try to make it more educational for the other students.

If you are going to run 30 speaks you better have a reason. If it is to combat racial/gender equity issues or something similar I am prone. Otherwise you just wasted 1 minute running an argument that I will not evaluate.

Congress Paradigm - I have been judging congress on a national level for over 30 years and look to the following criteria when judging competitors.

I appreciate the debate element of congress but there is a difference between congress and debate. I look for focus on the key issuesrather than speed and coverage of all issues raised. Empirical evidence is crucial when it comes to persuading on policy issues that have the potential to impact millions of lives. I appreciate good rhetoric but it is no substitution for real analysis and evidence. If you are speaking later in the round, I will look for crystallization and the bringing to light and analysis of the key issues in the round.

Never forget you are a legislator and this should be evident in your arguments, language and decorum.

in general:

presentation > content

(once the minimum threshold of sound logic, evidence, & argumentation are met)

congress:

• make your speech engaging with humor, pathos, or powerful rhetoric (depending on the bill obviously - e.g. don't run a joke agd for saudi arms). polished presentation is paramount for anyone listening to and caring about the content of your speech (especially in the real world)
• the best way to stand out argumentatively is to have clear, insightful, novel, and unique analysis that both synthesizes your evidence and interacts with the best points of the other side in a compelling way
• please have a polished and original intro that has comedic, emotional, narrative or rhetorical appeal. bonus points if you extend the device throughout your speech. please please please please please have a good intro. pretty please. with a cherry on top.
• asking and answering CX questions well (i.e. asking succinct and direct questions and answering in a cool, concise, & collected manner) is extremely important for securing a high rank - you want to showcase that you are the most knowledgeable in the room
• with that in mind, here are WORST types of CX questions that will kill your ranks: "Here is some outside piece of data/evidence. How does your argument still stand?", "[not even asking a question, just arguing at them and asking them to respond]", questions that last for more than 10-12 seconds, and any same-side questioning that isn't explicitly critical and strategic (a.k.a. no softball questions)
• unless you are the sponsor, you must have substantive clash in your speech
• warrant your claims clearly. everyone has evidence for their arguments and a lot of the time it will directly conflict with each other - show me why yours is the best by explaining it cogently and intuitively
• canned/stolen rhetoric or agd = 9
• weigh!!! oftentimes, every argument made in a round is factually true, which is why you simply have to explain why yours are more important
• this should go without saying, but rehash will be marked down
• your goal is to prove a net harm or benefit of the legislation. speeches without offense will be marked down
• too much pad reliance (i.e. for anything other than evidence or a brief glance for ref) will negatively influence your performance quality, and thus your ranking
• simplify your arguments and humanize your impacts - this is an event about persuasion
• I generally dislike when students break character. leaning into the roleplay will usually get you upped.
• speeches should have a real conclusion (that will usually tie back to your intro). ending with pass or fail will be marked down
• you don't need your pad for cx. put it down after your speech.
• I will usually reward you for flipping but it's not a get out of jail free card
• round adaption is really cool and good and you should do it. bounce off of others' intros and rhetoric; make the round fun!

PO: minimum break unless you make mistakes in which case you will be dropped. can move up in ranks by being funny, efficient, charismatic, etc. please use a google sheet for transparency.

extemp:

• #1 priority is how entertaining / how good of a presenter you were
• #2 priority is how well and completely you answered the question
• source quality matters a lot - e.g. books, academic research, think tanks, primary sources, etc.
• on tops (mini intros you use as transitions to each point) are super cool and you should include them
• speeches should be between 6:50 and 7:10

overall:

• be creative
• be respectful
• have fun!

good luck :)

Congress

I'm a relatively traditional judge. Remember that you are giving a speech and not reading an expository essay, so state clearly why you support or oppose the legislation on the table. I will judge substance primarily, but style does matter in the US Congress and, by extension, in a simulated one. The evidence you present should be valid and timely in nature as well as sourced appropriately. Most sources contain bias of some sort, but avoid citing McDonalds when you're arguing about the health benefits of cheeseburgers. Argue the substance and merits of the bill rather than technicalities, for instance an imprecise statistic in a bill is not a primary cause for negation. Spreading during a congressional debate is never effective. Both practical and moral/ethical arguments are appropriate.

After the initial speeches lay out arguments for and against the bill, effective speakers should make an effort to reference other speakers and reject or support their arguments in addition to bringing up new or more compelling ones where the opportunity exists. Prepared speeches are appropriate, but the best speakers will be able to aggregate previous conversations and address them with their time on the floor. Speakers should not reintroduce arguments already made unless they can significantly improve on them or debunk them. A speech with some verbal miscues that is relevant to the conversation happening in the session is better than a perfectly delivered canned speech prepared fully in advance. Questioning can be direct and even combative at times, but both questioner and respondent should seek to engage on substantive issues and, of course, with appropriate decorum.

The most effective congressional speakers are able to control the primary arguments being debated on the floor throughout the session and move the argument forward. A representative who controls the message even when they are not speaking will receive additional consideration.

For docs, please use speechdrop. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a second year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions. Presumption goes to the neg unless otherwise established in round.

Arguments need to be warranted when they're initially made if you want me to evaluate/vote for the argument later (meaning: don't just blip out a bunch of unwarranted claims in an underview and expect to win on a drop).

I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here. I am willing to vote for RVIs if that argument is won.

I have no qualms about voting on T. If your aff is going to be non-topical (or borderline-topical), you need to establish why/how you can still win and be prepared to beat back the inevitable T.

K's are fine, though I'm not personally familiar with much critical literature so you're going to need to explain it.

I will not evaluate or consider "30 speaks" theory arguments or similar arguments that lock speaks. It disrupts the competitive integrity of the tournament at-large.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't).

Along with "don't lie to me" above, I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating or significantlymisconstruing what evidence says during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue. Assume Iam going to read your evidence. I don't like power-tagging and it will make me skeptical of your other arguments.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches, but I'm not going to be deeply familiar with a lot of Phil stuff, so if it's complex you should probably hold my hand through it a bit.

Tricks suck, especially if they're purposefully hidden. You want to argue epistemic skepticism or something - sure that's really just a phil argument (though it needs to be appropriately warranted, not off-doc spread-through as half a line hidden in the middle of some card). I will flatly not evaluate arguments that tell me to evaluate the round after the 1AC or similar. Iwill consider voting for theory arguments on why such things are abusive.

If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

(credit to JS) - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. You read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. Every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay at least some attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address. If you're speaking last, crystallize the debate that's come before.

Being able to deliver a strong speech without relying too heavily on a script is important when I’m evaluating the difference between two strong competitors.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

andrea.peterson-longmore@neenah.k12.wi.us thats my email before you ask.

I have shrunk my paradigm after reading so many for prefs. If you want to see some of the longer sections, feel free to go here. Its nothing particularly interesting. I also have a rant section if you care about my hot takes on debate.

I have sections below for LD and Congress. If I am judging you in something else, click the link above.

Experience: I'm qualified to be your judge, no matter what style you are in. Enough said. If you don't believe me, just flip over to my judging record. I think its super cringy to read paradigms that list accomplishments from high school or whatever.

In round behaviors: I am early to my rounds, please be as well. I want to start on time to help tournaments run smoothly. For every minute we are late starting I start docking speaks from the opponent causing us to be behind. Also, please think about the space when choosing where to sit/stand. You don't want to be too far away or in a position that makes you difficult to understand (like facing away from me or sitting under a vent) or unable to charge your device if you need to. I tell my team all the time that they have been a human long enough to know how to care for one. Please care for your human. Go to the bathroom before round. Bring water or snacks in case your human gets hungry. Make sure your human is comfortable in the room. I will do the same.

"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"

I F**King HATE disclosure theory. Stop it. seriously, stop. It makes me want to stab myself in the eye every time I hear it. No one believes you when you try to claim you couldn't possibly have been prepared for what they run when you follow this up with 12 blocks and a disad.

Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.

Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me

Don't try to shake my hand. I really don't like it. I love the thought, but the germs and lack of handwashing I've seen at tournaments icks me out.

Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best with me

Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time. Post round me and I will go to tab to lower your speaks. I am fine with a quick question or two, but usually I am jonesing for more coffee so let me go back to the judges lounge!

I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.

Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.

Congress

Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.

Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really a "bonus," but I remember them when I am doing my rankings- which helps your placement)

PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, put a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.

Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.

Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session. I hate seeing chambers take tons of recesses and then complaining that they didn't all have a chance to speak.

Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.

Lincoln Douglas

Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments.In terms of speed I can handle pretty much everything I have seen on the circuit so far in my judging career, but if you aren't clear, I will raise my hand to let you know I can't understand you. I don't flow from the doc, but I will open it in case I I hear you say a word I didn't understand. I also will look at evidence on occasion, especially if I have reason to believe it might be miscut.

K's: I help my kids write them. I listen to them regularly, and I feel like I understand them. I am a decent judge for them, but if your K is built around your identity or is tied to your mental health, please strike me. I don't like being put in the "if you don't vote for me you are telling me my voice isn't meant to be heard" position. I almost always drop these cases, simply because I believe that is abusive to run and puts your opponent is an unwinnable position.

Theory: I enjoy legit theory debates, as long as it is debate theory- not things from outside the round (ESPECIALLY not disclosure) However I default to drop the arg, not drop the debater. I don't consider time skew or disclosure to be legitimate theory debate. If you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.

Topicality: I have a pretty high threshold for T arguments. For the living wage topic my kids ran a bee case (bees deserve a living wage!) and a birthday balloon case for the fossil fuels topic last year just to help you understand how I view Topicality. You have to be way out of left field for me to buy that your opponent is outside the expected realm of topicality.

Phil: It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I enjoy learning about new philosophies, but if you are being intentionally confusing about your philosophy to try to win the round, I will tank speaks. Win fairly or don't win. I hate watching rounds where one kid is clearly lost and trying to ask about the phil on CX and the other kid is being confusing on purpose to make sure their opponent can't respond.

Tricks: I have little experience with this- my students have just started getting into this. I am probably not your best judge for this type of argument, but I will try if you can explain it to me.

Misc. Stuff for any style debate:

-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28.4 for speaks.

-I don't flow/weigh things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.

-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.

-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.

TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.

Hello contestants,

* I am looking for logical and evidence-based debate. I can digest some rhetoric, but only where backed by strong evidence.
* I will promote debaters who successfully frame or reframe the debate beyond the stock arguments.
* I will have special credit for debaters who articulate and role model the change needed in our public discourse.

I am a parent of a competitor who has been involved in both speech and debate for the past 9 years and have been a judge for all types of events on multiple levels and circuits. I have seen it all, and neither appreciate excessive pandering to us judges nor losing sight of who your audience is, especially in your speeches. Shaking my hand after the round, while appreciated, will ultimately not impact my scoring, just as trying to make me laugh with a reference I don't understand will not help your chances (depending on the event). I always look to judge a round with utmost fairness and recognize the most deserving and prepared competitors for their hard work. I wish the best of luck to each of you and an enriching learning experience.

I am a parent judge who competed in high school in the 90s... Extemp and Sales (similar to Informative Speaking).

Extemp - main goal is to answer the question. A logical argument with good supporting evidence goes a long way. Fluency, humor, and good use of time helps me break a tie.

Other IEs - bring your energy, I love good blocking and good cutting. For multiple characters - vocal variation is important if you want me to be able to distinguish between them.

My "1" will go to the one who is able to convince me the best that they are the character(s) they portray.

Congress:

-It's a good to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker.

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker or later.

-Decorum matters, you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-Quality > quantity of speeches

-strong debate > parliamentary shenanigans

Hi!

I am a Sophomore at the University of Arkansas. I have experience in multiple formats, Congress, Parliamentary, and IPDA I have the most experience competing in. I also have done in the past LD, PF, WSD. So I'm fairly experienced in the world of debate. I have 6 years of debate under my belt.

I look for good logical flow as well as who persuades me more. Signpost for me. Make sure I can flow it. Keep it neat!

Please do not spread. If I can't understand you I'm not going to flow.

Don't be rude to your opponents. Just don't.

Please keep a good round going and try your hardest to give a good easy to understand flow.

For Congress:

Know what you're doing.

Elect a PO that will run a smooth session, as a career PO I will rank you well if you do a good job. I know it takes a lot of work.

Try to avoid podiums. Avoid having your laptop. I know it's not always possible. But do your best to avoid them.

Clash. Don't just give me your 3 point constructive. I want to see good solid clash. You will be upvoted for good clash!

Have fun!

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 you will most likely be heavily penalized on my ballot if you fail to do this. 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.

This is my first year judging. I am a trial lawyer by profession. I am looking for good public speaking which means eye contact, using your notes but not just reading from them and speaking clearly and at a good pace. Most speakers need to slow down which helps in clarity. Tone is important. You want the judges in the back of the room to hear you. Later in the debate you should be speaking as extemporaneous as possible. Do not be afraid to make mistakes. I am always impressed by all of you!

For Ethos scores I am looking for participation in the chamber and you need to ask at least two questions.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them.

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

PF: I am a parent judge, and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I have judged local tournaments and at 2023 NSDA Nationals in Phoenix, AZ.

1. Please talk at an understandable speed
2. Avoid debate jargon
3. Most importantly, remember to be polite and respectful to everyone.

CD: I have judged locals in Minnesota, Sunvite 2024 and 2025, TOC 2024, 2024 NSDA in Des Moines, IA, and Yale 2024. I am not familiar with parliamentary procedure, so I will focus my judging on your speeches (deep critical-thinking arguments will be appreciated). As mentioned above, please talk at an understandable speed. I appreciate a clear structure and signposting.

Background:

I debated 4 years of PF at duPont Manual High School and graduated in May 2020.

My preferences:

TL;DR pretty standard flow judge, just make sure to warrant your arguments and don't try to read blippy arguments with a plan to blow them up later.

- I will try to disclose whenever I can.

- Frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal. If you want to fully frontline a contention in 2nd rebuttal and go for it, I'd love that. But at the very least, frontline offense.

- Quality >>>>>> quantity. I much prefer a small number of well-developed arguments over a large number of blippy arguments.

- Warranting is everything for me. I'll always prefer a well-warranted argument without evidence over an unwarranted argument that has evidence (but obviously having both evidence and a warrant is the best).

- Moderate speed is fine with me. However, I prefer a more understandable debate.

- If I judge that there is no offense by the end of the round, I will default to voting for the first speaking team. I think the second speaking team has a significant advantage in PF, so the burden is on them to convince me that they have won.

- I love to hear warranted weighing arguments. The more frequently you reiterate these, the more likely I am to vote for you.

- I do not like it when teams read 1 or 2 blippy sentences about an argument in their case (or rebuttal for that matter) and then blow it up in summary/FF. I think that's almost impossible for the other team to properly handle that, especially with PF's time constraints. If your entire second half strat is entirely based on a warrant that was just 1-2 sentences of your case, I'm not going to be happy about it and that will play into my decision.

- If you want to run theory or Kritiks, that's fine with me, but you should know that I have no idea how to evaluate them. You'll have to explain your argument simply and clearly, along with telling me why I should vote on the argument.

- If you're going to make an argument about sensitive issues like suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, please provide a trigger warning before you start. Before engaging in that type of discussion, we should make sure that everybody is prepared for the conversation.

Feel free to ask me questions about the round, I'm always happy to provide any insight I can. And if you have questions about my paradigm or other preferences, feel free to ask them before the round starts.

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

Congress thoughts for TOC 2025

-I do not judge this event regularly so I’m wholly unaware and indifferent to who is good/popular/etc

-Offense, offense, offense. I generally find purely defensive arguments to be terminally unpersuasive to me

-I care far less about speaking style and far more about solid argumentation for/against a bill at hand

-you are supposedly pretending to be the current US congress which means it’s expected your evidence and arguments need to take account the current political climate and various XOs of the current administration

-CX can drastically help or hurt your rank

-I find my largest complaint with Congress Debate to be the frequency with which debaters assert things as fact or utilize tenuous internal link chains not supported by evidence to advance their arguments

-you’re debating questions of policy. Think tanks, journal articles, subject experts >>> news agencies

-I’m going to fact check your sources as you speak. It’s the TOC, misquoting ev, making up sources, etc. will get ya ranked last.

-anticompetitive practice such as encouraging people to not speak on an item, pre-determining who will speak on a bill in what order, or taking recess bc of lack of preparation or side imbalance will be ranked down severely

**prep time stops when the email is sent, stop stealing prep**

Updates 24-25 (more recent towards top)

-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp.Like zero.Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well

-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone

-LD living wage: See above ^ It feels like almost every "give a living wage to XYZ worker" aff has some 'creatively' highlighted ev that more often than not indicates a lack of competitive wages, but not lack of living wages

_________________________________________________________________

Do what you do well:I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates:No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.

3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range28.4-28.5average;28.6-28.7should have a chance to clear;28.8-28.9pretty good but some strategic blunders;29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

PF

I am a judge who listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well-balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution. I will do my best to flow the arguments presented. I am a judge who will listen to cross X but will only count it in my decision if there is no other way for me to vote.

LD

I have judged LD a few times so I am familiar with the structure of the round. My suggestion for you to win my ballot is to lay out your arguments for or against the topic and convince me why your side means more than the other. I do not appreciate speed when presenting your arguments. I am a quality over quantity when it comes to judging. If you try any tricks, theory, or K's, I will not be able to vote for your side. I have extensive experience judging PF and know argumentation and Impacts. This will help you win your round with me.

Congress

Presiding officers:

I expect you to use preset recency unless otherwise determined by the competition. 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 the essential processes.To get a 6 from me, you must be efficient, clean, and commanding. Time signals should be obvious and consistent.

Structure: The structure 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.

Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it.

Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side. There needs to be a clear warrant and impact. Avoid making assumptions of what we should/shouldn't know by being explicit with your logical steps to connect each cause and effect. Impacts should be the consequences that are reasons we should pass/fail a bill. Try not to reiterate points that have already been given unless you have a particularly unique perspective or piece of evidence to add to the debate.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. There's a performance element and an argumentation element to each speech. Do not speak quickly and make sure to enunciate so you are clearly heard. Make sure that your tone doesn't change for your flow but that your tone changes for emphasis.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become a shouting mach. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & to the point. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks.

Questioning: A skilled questioner either leads the speaker down a line of reasoning to where the speaker arrives at a conclusion that contradicts themselves or asks a question that immediately forces the speaker to acknowledge a hole in their argument. Furthermore, do not condescend, gaslight, or otherwise be rude to the speaker. Do not bring in new evidence. Keep the questions short and to the point.

Speech:

I have been coaching speech for 8 years. In terms of content, as long as the topic being covered is not vulgar or offensive, I am fine with it. In interop events, I want to understand the climax of the piece. Take me on a journey through your piece. Loud does not necessarily mean you will get a good score from me. Provide dynamics to the piece so that when you do go big, you catch me off guard. For the other categories, I want you to have structure in your speech. I want you to either convince me of your position or inform me about a topic or question you are presented with. Memorization is key!

Currently coach of Minnetonka High School and Eden Prairie High School

Hey Y'all I love weighing and extentions and plzzzzzzzzzzz signpost for me.

I've done circuit for 1 year for LD. Done 2 years of LD, 2 years in other formats, and also 1 year in Congress.

LD - Make sure to sign post when speaking. Use weighing mechanics to weigh impacts. Clearly explain framework and why your fw matters. If you don't signpost while doing your rebuttal I will drop it.

• Idk lately why a lot of debaters don't link their case back to their fw.
• Also weighing too duh????
• Signpost plz so I don't get confused lol
• Tech>Truth

If I yell out clear 3 times I will stop flowing

Circuit LD - Plans, Disads, CP, K and Theory only. I will not vote on tricks arguments.

Plans,Disads,CP>Theory>K>Other things

tech>truth

My PF paradigm is the same as my LD but without framework.

I will vote you down for any Tricks

Congress - Speeches must be clear and concise. The only way you will get a good placement if you actually have clash.

*Little rant: I don't know why nobody in congress have clash. This is a real debate hence you would need some clash. Don't just go up and say your side without talking about the other sides points.

How I vote on congress. Argumentation/Content>Speech points/Quality>Quality of Questions> Following Procedures

Email chain send to Nolan.nhantrinh@gmail.com

I am a parent congressional debate judge. Two years of experience in judging congress.

My style is clear and logical delivery. Being aggressive is good, but be respectful. Support your argument with facts.

Good debate must have logical explanation, quality evidence. Clarity is important, speak clearly rather than fast.

Make good eye contact, organization and flow is important.

Overly rude and condescending remarks will be marked lowest.

PO should be organized and maintaining perfect time is critical. Giving a fair chance to every member is important.

I usually judge congress and often serve as a parliamentarian, so that will be the focus of my commentary here.

Firstly, I pay attention to everything that transpires in the chamber. Not much is going to be lost on me, so even the faces made while others are speaking or questioning are taken into account in my evaluation. I judge the whole round.

Above all else, I privilege order and decorum in the chamber. Competitors who act rudely or are disrespectful to the body will be marked down severely. Please be on your best behavior.

I tend to account for procedure rather heavily and am an absolute stickler for following the rules of order to the letter. I will reward competitors handsomely for a well-timed and thoughtful motion but could mark a competitor down for a careless or counterproductive motion. If you are using parliamentary procedure in a chamber I judge, please make sure that the motions you are making are in the best interest of the body as a whole and not simply serving your own interests. If I am the parliamentarian, and if you have a question about the rules or procedure, feel free to raise a point of inquiry or ask me before or after a round or during recess, and I will be more than happy to explain whatever requires clarification. Competition is a learning opportunity for competitors and a teaching opportunity for me, and I treat it as such.

When it comes to speeches, I really cannot stand either one-sided or repetitive debate. Believe me when I tell you that this statement holds true for pretty much every other congress judge. Move the debate forward. There is a difference between a crystallization speech and repetitive debate: repetitive debate merely rehashes the arguments made by others and adds a small bit of commentary; a true crystal speech effectively synthesizes the debate and provides meaningful commentary on the merits (or lack thereof) of the legislation and effectively argues why the bill should be passed or failed. If you are giving the eighth affirmative, I seriously doubt there is a fresh argument being made. Maybe there is a fresh argument there, but it's not likely.

For early cycle speeches I like to see very thorough, well-tagged research from reputable sources. In addition to coaching debate, I teach AP Seminar and AP Research, so I very much know what is a solid source and what is biased or cherry picked; therefore, please do not provide an argument backed by shoddy research because I absolutely will know it. That said, I will reward competitors who give those early speeches if the research is sound and the delivery is polished and well-rehearsed. It takes a ton of work to be truly prepared to give a sponsorship or first negation, and I understand that, so I evaluate those speeches accordingly.

In terms of delivery, I want the speeches to be as extemporaneous as possible. Non-verbal cues like eye contact, hand gestures, and use of physical space in the well are all things I tend to reward. I do understand that you have to consult your notes for quotations and statistics and things of that ilk, but try not to be overly reliant on notes. Verbal delivery is important, clearly. I do not like overly fast delivery for Congress; save that for CX or LD where it is helpful. I also do not like when competitors go way too slow. Think Goldilocks here: not too fast and not too slow, you want it to be just right. Also, the rooms used for Congress tend to be rather large, so please project your voice.

Finally, regarding questioning periods, I see this as time to question the speaker, hence the title: questioning blocks. I frown upon asking overly prefaced questions that amount to no more than speechifying, so please avoid that. If you ask a question, then let them answer it. If you have a "gotcha" question, then ask that question; if you have truly got them, they will struggle with answering it. Interrupting the speaker is not display of greater content mastery for you if they are actually answering the question; rather, it's being rude to a person from whom you sought information. Also, I tend to see questions as more of an extension of the speech, so if you are being questioned (especially early speeches), you ought to be prepared to redirect the questioner to points made in the speech, research you have conducted that addresses the question, a logical argument that answers the matter on the floor, or simply admit that you do not have the data necessary to adequately answer the question. I see the questioning periods as less of a "clash time" and as more of a "clarification time."

If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, please ask me a specific question before or after a round. I'm an open book and am more than happy to share.

Congress:

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Speech:

EVERY performance must tell a story.

Extemp: Someone with zero knowledge of your topic prior to the round should be able to walk away from your speech with a basic understanding of your topic and your stance on the issue. You should include a variety of sources, and they should be as current and relevant as possible. I look for organization and structure, but I also like to see some evidence of your personality to keep me engaged. Knowledge of your topic is important, as is rhetoric and logic throughout the speech.

Info: These speeches should be clear and entertaining, and should include concise and organized ideas, thought-provoking takeaways, and interesting, engaging visuals. I will be looking for how well you inform your audience about your topic.

Oratory: Original oratories are a place to share personal experiences, either lived or researched, and should showcase your passion for an idea that matters to you.

HI, DI, Duo, POI: Tell a compelling and meaningful story that can be clearly followed. Acting and blocking should ADD to the performance, not detract from it – remember that drama is not always about crying, shrieking, and falling on the ground. Oftentimes, the best performances utilize pauses and soft spoken words more often than noise to convey emotion.

Prose and Poetry: I was an English teacher before coming to coach Speech and Debate, so I absolutely love listening to prose and poetry. I will evaluate characterization, insight and understanding as far as the mood and meaning of the piece, how clearly themes and ideas are expressed, and overall delivery (aim for distinct enunciation without sounding pedantic).

Final Interp ranks are based on the story, acting, blocking, message, and overall effect of each performance.

Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.

Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ James Logan... & Parli @ UC Davis :)

Evidence: Put me on the chain: mwoodhead@mitty.com, mittypolicydocs@gmail.com . However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.

Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.

Policy:

• Open to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am completely open to K arguments/ affirmatives. If going for the K, please overcome my general skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in your framework. I want to know what exactly I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
• Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, alts, and CP and perm texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, and super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
• T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on the education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable. But, other things matter too.
• I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
• On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
• I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 27-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.

LD:

(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)

Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.

Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.

Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.

Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.

Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.

Parli:

Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.


PF:

Years Judging Public Forum: 9

Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.

Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.

Topicality: cool
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims; signposting is a must. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. I also am not a big fan of open cross in LD/PF.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 27 (using the 25-30 scale) unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remem.ber, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. Please monitor your use of jargon and run theory at your own risk. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.