Congress judging paradigm

No canned speeches, please.

Provide evidence/citations for key assertions.

Clash is a good thing, re-hash not so much.

Interesting or novel arguments are always appreciated, especially if they show you've done solid research.

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

Overview: I have been the Head Coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy since founding the team in 2013. I have been fortunate to coach dozens of students both at the AZ-local level and on the national circuit, but believe this activity (regardless of event) is first and foremost about "seeking the truth" through deep reading, active listening, clear thinking, and finally honest speaking. Your goal should not be to only be able to convince people with insular prior experience and expertise in S&D; good communication is good communication and should be about being able to reach anyone. As a coach, I also have the privilege/challenge of training lots of new parent/community judges who are scared to judge for the first time. My honest belief is that if you've "read a book before, watched a movie before, listened intently to a lecture before, and had a conversation with someone who disagreed with you" then you have sufficient life experience to become a good speech and debate judge (assuming they also learn the event rules/format, give feedback, and keep asking questions to keep improving).

Congressional Debate: Congressional Debate will forever be one of my favorite events. Your job is to be the whole package: convincing speaker, solid researcher, active questioner, and get into the collegial role play (without wandering too far into excessive, unnecessary motions).

- Speeches: There is no specific speaking position that is prone to do better or worse than others for me. I've seen and coached dozens of students who were primarily constructive speakers who liked speaking in early cycles on each bill. Thoroughly researched and original constructive speeches are vital for inviting good debate to follow. Others preferred (and were successful) at being a mix of late-constructive-speaker with some refutation (I welcome direct refutation as long as it is deeper than "Rep XX says YY and I disagree", offer an analysis of their claims/warrants/impacts). Others preferred to be a late cycle ("crystalization") speaker with greater emphasis on "weighing" and clarifying the overall issues brought up in the debate (please know that just giving a laundry list of previous speaker names, what they said, and whether you agree/disagree is not a crystalization; I was already here to hear their speeches, you still need to offer unique research and original analysis, even if it is analysis of their analysis). Any of those three speaker positions can do well or can do poorly depending on the speaker/speech. All three of them have an important role to play in Congressional Debate. In all 3 speaking positions, evidence is necessary.

- Decorum/Speech Length: The NSDA rule is that speeches have a time limit of 3 minutes, but does not specify a penalty for those who abuse the speech length. My belief is that exceeding the time limit is un-collegial (privileging one's own speech over those of others), shows a lack of decorum, and disrespects the rules. Many tournaments/leagues have begun offering a 10 second grace period (with the idea of letting a speaker finish their sentence/thought). If you are competing at a tournament that allows such a grace period, know that your goal should still be to give a 3:00 speech and not 3:10 speeches. Exceeding 3:10 is frankly rude (I've been horror-struck to see speeches go to 3:17, 3:26, 3:42, etc.), particularly when your PO is giving you several warnings. Stealing time from Congress’ ability to get to other speeches is unfair and poor form.

- Presiding: I have trained many students to preside (and even been fortunate to coach a student who Presided in the Finals at Nationals), and know how incredibly difficult it is to lead your peers. I have judged many POs who have been ranked in my Top 1-3 or Top 6, and also judged POs who have been in the bottom 25% of my Parli ballot. I know how difficult POing is and wish to reward a truly great PO, but the bar for leadership is still quite high and getting elected is not a guarantee that you're going to earn a good rank. POing takes practice both inside and outside of tournaments.

- Mentorship/Civility: In some ways I am grateful that there isn't a novice division of Congressional Debate because it means that new students or competitors from teams who are new to Congress will hopefully get to see some good models from experienced students in the room which they can learn from and emulate. If you are an experienced Congressional Debater, you already have a sizable competitive advantage over these students learning the ropes; they are not a threat to you. Build them up, invite them to discuss the docket with you before the round, encourage them to come to the next Congress (its in your best interest for Congress to grow across the State and Nation). Bludging a new congressional debater to death or being condescending just makes them never want to do the activity again, and makes judges less inclined to vote for you (even if you give solid speeches). This activity is about more than winning rounds; "speaking with good purpose" should be about more than giving quality speeches.

Public Forum Debate: Despite having a background in debate, I wish teams would emphasize the "Public" nature of Public Forum Debate. I competed in Public Forum Debate shortly after it was founded, and remember that part of the rationale for creating it was that debate was getting too far removed from the public and becoming increasingly insular If this community exists to only persuade those who have been specially trained to think in a specific way, then this activity fails at its goal of being relevant in the real world.

Speak clearly, medium slowly, persuasively, and be grounded in thorough research (in all speeches, not just the constructives). Unsubstantiated claims, or rebuttal/summary/final focus speeches that keep re-hashing your side while ignoring the opposition's side, are not rewarded. Even though I am coach, you are inevitably far more broadly and deeply read on this specific topic. Your job is to teach me just like it would be to teach any judge. I should leave feeling like I've learned something about the world, or think about the topic in a slightly new way.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Please allow me to give you the respect of speaking honestly. I have coached lots of Novice LD through the basics of traditional LD, and past that I admit my limitations. I am essentially non-responsive to kritikal arguments and spreading. I acknowledge that you are significantly more thoroughly read on the topic than I am and likely will ever be. Use that knowledge responsibly and teach me. I should leave the round feeling like I as the judge learned something new about the world (or I should think about something in a new way), because you slowly taught it to the audience. Make it obvious your side is winning.

Policy Debate: If a tournament is in dire straits and desperate enough that I am judging a round of policy debate, then God rest all of our souls. Firstly, consider what I've said above about Congress, PF, and LD. If judging policy debate, I will basically adopt a "policy maker" paradigm, and your job is to (slowly, like a real policymaker would) convince me that the policy plan put forward is or isn't the better option. If I can't understand you, then I don't write it down and it didn't happen. You will have more success with stock arguments: topicality, advantages/disadvantages, maybe counterplans. If you're willing to meet me where I'm at, I'll give you a fair listening. I understand the need for progressive/kritikal arguments to exist in this form of academic debate, but they will most likely not help you win my vote.

About Me:  I am a coach (of 13 years) of a relatively small team.  I have coached IE's, LD, and PF. 

LD: 

Policy and LD are both lovely events with many good attributes, but they are distinct events.  LD is philosophical, value-based debate.  I dislike any behavior or action that attempts to make LD feel like policy, including spreading.  If I don't understand what you are saying or can't pick up the tags, they are not getting onto my flow, and I will not evaluate them.

I don't enjoy Kritiks.  I strongly prefer the debaters to engage in substantive debate of the resolution at hand, not whether or not the resolution is bad, etc.  Such tactics feel like gamemanship, not substantive debate of issues.  Avoiding actual debate is generally not a winning strategy in a debate round that I judge.

Logical links are big with me. I expect contentions to be linked through the criterion to uphold your chosen value and for you to show that your value is best upheld or that your position best upholds both proposed values.  Make the connections for me, don't assume, and give me clear voting issues that follow logically from the cases and clash that have been presented in the course of the debate.  I can only weigh the arguments that you actually present and clearly link.

I prefer solid clash throughout, but I will not tolerate abusive behavior.  A debate without clash is not a debate.  Be clear, concise, polite, respectful, stand when you are speaking during the round, and engage your opponent's arguments without neglecting to rebuild your own case.

I appreciate clear and concise roadmaps (off-clock).

All of that being said, in a round where the basics are all there, a good argument, is a good argument, and I will weigh it if I am given a clear reason to do so.

Background - Debated LD in highschool. Current debate coach.

Speed - 9/10 on speed, but signpost very clearly if speaking quickly.

Style - prefer traditional, but progressive is fine if run well.

Framework - I like value and criterion clash. I evaluate winner of framework first, then use the winning framework to evaluate impacts.

Impacts - Every argument should be clearly impacted. I heavily weigh imminent and highly likely impacts over potential hypothetical slippery slope scenarios (ie don't run nuke extinction unless the path to extinction is very clear and highly probable). I ask that you provide an impact analysis in your final speech. Show me clearly where your impacts outweigh.

Topicality - I rarely vote for topicality unless opponent is blatantly off-topic.

Theory - fine if you run it well.

Kritiks - fine if you run them well. Explicitly state where the links apply.

Plans - Aff is never required to have a formal plan, and no plan text is required when discussing possible pragmatic implementation. I don't vote for counterplans (instead run it as a traditional style argument).

Prep - Flashing isn't prep, but you do your best to be quick. Excessive issues will result in loss of speaker points.

Respect - I am fine with heated debate, but no blatant disrespect, ableism, homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia etc, and no advocating in round for murder, genocide, or oppression.

Diction and speed should be clear and reflect insight to the meaning of the piece. Think of variations in speed and volume other than just faster and louder to show emotion. Sometimes a whisper is more powerful than a shout.

When appropriate to the event, do not be afraid of movement! Please consider blocking that is truly reflective of the meaning of the piece and internal motivations. In duo events exceptional performance includes a mature interaction and awareness of the other - active listening, genuine reactions and responses, blocking that is integrated and realistic- not just pacing around each other.

For prose and poetry, exceptional performance includes clear distinction between characters / pieces maintained throughout the performance. A clear understanding of the purpose for each piece in the overall theme is also key. Consider the intro as an important opportunity to guide the audience to the lesson or impact you’d like the performance to have.

I was a policy debater for four years in high school and four years in college at Arizona State University. I debated at the NDT in 1988 and 1989, and broke in 1989.

I don't have strong opinions what arguments should or should not be made. I'm fine with critiques, framework, theory and performance but also like "traditional" (plan, solvency, topicality and disad) debates. My verbal paradigm when I'm asked is that I have probably seen it all and have voted for it at some point. I am fine with speed and will take a flash of the speeches to get a better idea of the evidence as it is being presented. My RFD's are based on in-round arguments. I've been a volunteer coach and judge since about 2008 and in that time have judged multiple debates on each year's policy topic. I also judge Lincoln Douglas with the same paradigm.

Former ToC competitor (2009-2012) and Former Coach for The Harker School (2013-16). Been in out rounds and have coached students in outrounds at: Harvard (&RR), Cal Berkeley (&RR), Tournament of Champions, National Tournament, Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Golden Desert, Stanford, and District Qualifiers in multiple states.

Do whatever you want in the round, it’s your debate. Just make sure everyone is being professional and furthering the round to the best of their ability.

I’m not going to do a whole bunch of work for you regarding linking and impact calculus so make sure to clearly articulate your KVIs towards the end.

There’s a good chance I will call for some cards so please make sure to have everything available! (NSDA Nats 23, I’ve seen a lot of teams just create an email thread and send evidence that way. As long as I can still see the evidence either way is fine! My email is Titanpride4949@gmail.com)

I debated for 4 years at Desert Vista High School, and I am a freshman debating at ASU.

I will ask for flashed versions of the speeches and, if I can, I will try to record rounds so I can make sure there is no clipping or cheating. I encourage you to do the same. Everything will be deleted at the end of the round. I can handle speed but will tell you if I need you to be clearer and/or slow down. Be funny in cross ex, don't be rude.


tldwr: I will vote for the arguments that the team is winning. Don't be offensive, ableist, discriminatory, or make anyone in the round uncomfortable with your language, behavior and/or body odor. Warranted and comparative analysis and line by line debating is actually directly correlated with how well you do in the round.
tech over truth, offense/defense paradigm but if you're winning defensive reasons to not vote for the other team I can be persuaded.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Revenew%2C+Kailyn

LD Paradigm:

For Lincoln-Douglas debate, I have three major focuses that all debaters should adhere to following standard LD protocol.

First, I am straightforward framework judge. I will keep a close record of contentions, sources (list dates of source publication during speeches), and counterarguments of each side. If two cards clash, I will value what is most recent (hence why dates matter) and most relevant to the debate topic. Pointing out logical fallacies in your opponent's argument while crafting a solid logical argument is key to winning framework. Very important: I prefer to stick to the resolution and will therefore discount meta-debate arguments.

Second, I will look for a strong ethical argument regarding each side's value and criterion. Generally by the second speech for each side, I want consensus on all definitions given in the round as well as a reason why I should choose one value over another. Bonus points will be observed for the debaters who can absorb their opponent's value into their own framework.

Third, be clear on voter issues in the final speeches. Make sure your proposed outcomes are realistic and logical. Since there is no time for rebuttals on final speeches, I will weigh the quality of closing statements.

Other notes:

I have a pretty fast ear and I do not mind if speeches are delivered quickly as long as I can understand them. As a general rule, I recommend speaking louder if you also wish to speak faster. Diction is very important.

Use cross-examination time wisely. Try to minimize clarification questions since this time should be reserved for poking holes in your opponent's logic. Any trading of cards is permitted during prep time, but taking notes on the cards will be on the clock!

Lay Judge.

Please speak slowly and make your arguments clear. I have judged at a few tournaments and do not enjoy debaters who speak fast and use a lot of evidence to respond to their opponents. It makes the experience not as enjoyable.

Please make sure to repeat the things that you think are most important so that I am sure to get it in my notes. I am more of a listener and tend to use my facial expressions and other gestures to signal to the debates that I am following along and understand their arguments.

Be professional and polite. I usually give pretty high speaker points to all debaters especially if both teams are friendly and well prepared for the debate.

Lastly, you don't have to shake my hand after the round. I only disclose my decision to the debaters when the tournament requires that the judge does so.

Your best bet with me is to refrain from speeding. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen. The best and most effective speakers are those that can present a logical argument and back it up with relevant evidence, then point out the reason(s) their opponents' cases are not as strong.

I don't appreciate people who blatantly lie and claim that opponents have failed to address points when they clearly have. Denying reality may work for politicians, but I don't much care for politicians, so don't try it with me. Tell me WHY your case is stronger, don't make empty claims. 

I lean left, but I respect anyone with solid research and logical reasoning. Alaska tends to be very traditional, not a progressive circuit, so that is what I am used to hearing. A more progressive case may not be as effective with me as it is with others. 

Keep it clear, concise, and comprehensible. 

Short short version - don't suck.

Somewhat longer versions (by debate type)

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Speed - if it's clear OK, otherwise I'll say "clear" once then zone out. I do value good speaking skills and will factor that into my overall decision.

In all fairness, I do not walk into the round with a blank slate. I do assume both sides have an equal burden. I do assume the resolution was worded in such a way to provide equal grounds for debate. Feel free to argue that it's not so, but you're really going to have to be convincing. All that means I rarely, if ever, buy a kritik in LD.

I lean towards the traditional when it comes to LD. I like to hear debates that cover the big picture of the topic then use multiple supports to bolster that argument. I don't like to hear 20 blips then the debater proclaiming with glee "he dropped contention 17, I win!". I will use what both debaters have told me to weigh the specific arguments and decide how much a specific drop harms your side. So, a good thing to do is weigh your (and your opponents) arguments and tell me which are the important ones in the debate and why. That gives me something to go on. I also expect impacts from your arguments. Why is it important and how does it affect the validity of the resolution. I expect CX to be more than just asking for contentions you didn't hear. I listen to CX and it can factor into my decision, however you should always mention things you thought were important during CX in a later speech.

I do not stop the prep time clock for dealing with thumb drives, computer glitches, etc.  If you want to run "flex-prep" or anything considered outside traditional LD, let's talk before the round.

Things you might want to know:

I have "real" job as an software engineer. I don't spend endless days in Starbucks reading the latest philosophy rags. I'm not going to know the stuff you're running and thus not vote for it. I'm a man of science, not letters. I have a tendency to like facts, figures, stats and evidence over philosophical poofiness. Break things down for me and show me how you answer the resolution correctly.

I expect civility in the round. Ad Hominem attacks, spreading as a tactic, and just generally being mean I frown upon.

The world already has enough jerks, don't be another one.

I normally will not ask for cards after a round unless a competitor asks me to on suspicion of an ethics violation. If your card wasn't clear the first time, well I guess I didn't get it. Like I said at the top, I still value good speaking skills.

Public Forum

I have absolutely no tolerance for what I'll call "unsportsmanlike conduct" in a round. I've seen too much of this in PFD. I will drop you for being a jerk.  You don't care about low speaks, but a drop gets your attention.

I also really, really like it when teams use studies and examples that are not the same dang 3 examples everyone and their dog is also running. Do some digging, give me something unique, fresh and different and you'll be rewarded. Work on making this a decent debate event and not add fuel to the fire for the detractors of PFD.

Congress

Unless you are the first speaker, please, please advance the debate by offering something new or clarifying something that's been said, or countering something already said.  Don't repeat, rehash and recycle.  This is a debate event.  I expect a clash of ideas.  If you are the PO, I'm OK with a little levity in the chamber, but don't go off the deep end.  I expect the PO to run the house and know what they are doing.  If I'm the Parli - I'm there to help you if you ask and to keep things from getting out of hand.  Other than that - it's your house, have fun.  I very much frown on "unsportsmanlike" shenanigans in the house, like intentionally blocking people from speaking as a team tactic.  My frown extends to my chamber rankings.

Policy

I don't do drugs.

Speech

You want me as your Extemp judge.  I love this event.