Hello,

My name is David Appelbaum and I became interested in judging when my son entered high school in 2016. I have a masters in education from Temple University in Philadelphia but left teaching to work full time in technology in 2005. Currently, I am the director of strategic partnerships for an IT support and cybersecurity company and live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

I am not a coach, but have judged both regional and national events for the last few years and feel my experience in public speaking and policymaking has contributed to my ability to judge fairly and constructively. If you speak clearly, give plenty of citations, follow procedures, and say smart things, the likelihood is you'll be ranked. Say dumb, racist, sexist, stuff, and I will drop you and report such activities to Tab and or your coach.

Your ranking will depend on making a strong argument. I could care less how crazy the argument is as long as you show me the links. Use quantified evidence and support your arguments with well thought out analysis and impact.

Other than that, speak well and most importantly, have fun. Seriousness can ruin what is supposed to be a fun and educational activity. So don't be a jerk, loosen up, and have a good time.

-David

Are you ready to meet your typical judge who not long ago sat in the same seats you are now sitting in? (Obviously not your exact seats as we are all now at home or in a distanced location... but you get my point).

Background:

Hello! My name is Muskan and three years ago I was a high school congressional debater where I mainly participated at the local and state level (3 years). Now, I have moved on to college and have left the reigns of political debate to study bioinformatics at Virginia Commonwealth University. I've done my share of judging and helping coach speech and congress, but I have to admit my judging skills are rusty and I will probably be a little slow. So please bear with me!

That being said, here are some of my paradigms:

1. I believe that speech or debate is 50% speaking style/persuasion and 50% content.

- I am not a fan of spreading. But, I will not completely mark you down as long as I can follow you and understand your argument. Note that with the online set up, I am forced to write eballots and take notes online, whereas I have always preferred writing. This may make slower in following you.

- Congress Specific: Please refrain from reading word-for-word your speeches off of a pad or your computer screen. Please do not cover your face with a legal notepad. Please do not lean over to read from a notepad. Try to make eye contact with your chamber and your camera. Even if we are online, it is still clear if you are reading off of your screen. Your notepad is your reference.

2. For debate/congress: Trust me to flow the debate round. So make sure you are integrating refutation and weighing arguments that have been made. I like frameworks, but they will count towards your time so make them as succinct as possible. For congress, I would prefer you not to make a speech just for speaker points if it doesn't add to the debate. I expect a typical styled round of congress debate per legislation- 1st speech's base information, 2nd speeches' and onward refutations, ending with crystallizations.

3. Keep it fresh and interesting. Please integrate new ideas or thoughts. I get bored of hearing the same contentions or stock arguments. I love when someone brings up anything current as long as it is done accurately.

4. Cross-ex/Questioning- Please let your opponents talk. Talking over someone unless they are not getting to the point doesn't make you look any cooler or a better debater.

5. Please refrain from distractions, looking at your phones unless for timing purposes, playing games or getting distracted on your phones, eating, side talking, etc. Though it may not still be your turn to speak, I will still be aware of your behavior.

6. Please refrain from being intentionally offensive in any manner. There are moments- specifically in congress- where you may be debating a controversial topic, at which point, I will be understanding.

Other than that, I just want you to have fun and do your best. The applications of speaking and debating are endless, so never stop learning and improving!

I was a competitor for four years, participating in LD, PF, Extemp, and Congress. I reached semifinals at the CFL Grand National Tournament and was a national qualifier in Extemp. Remember--Congress is a debate event, and I hope that you treat it as such. I value the clash in your speech on around the same level as the points you put forward, and I am also partial to strong questioning.

And please, for the love of the Congressional gods and goddesses, don't rehash or allow debate to drag on beyond a reasonable number of cycles. You'll lose major points from me. I value selfless that advance a stagnating debate.

I'm excited to watch you compete!

Hey! I did CX, PF, LD, and Congress in high school, and I've been debating parli at UC Berkeley for the past two years. I'm willing to hear out a spectrum of argumentation, as long as it's well-researched and well-qualified. You're welcome to spread if you really think it'll do you the most good, but please flash me your case if you choose to do so. Please don't say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic because I would hate to drop a team automatically. I'll also be looking for continuity in flow and consistent clash—make things spicy!

I am a former competitor from Arizona, where I competed in just about every type of event. I competed nationally in Congress and Extemp, and at the state level, I competed in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Impromptu, Congress, etc. I am now a Junior Economics Major at Duke University looking to enter into civil service/politics.

So now that you know who I am, here's what you need to know for the round:

I am an experienced debater/judge so I am fine with speed/jargon but with online judging, it may be easier to keep a moderate pace. If you are going too fast, I will ask/signal you to slow down.

I will flow the entire round, so line by line/down the flow rebuttals/extensions are great.

You will probably both know more about the round's evidence/topic than me, so when reading include the tag/thesis of your card NOT JUST NAME AND DATE. Rebuttal and debate occur with ideas and warrants not just saying "extend Chung '12" or "Johnson '07 refutes", so you should always include what the card says and why it matters too.

When concluding, impact and weigh the round for me, you're TELLING me how to vote so it should be clear what you want and why I should vote for your side.

Think that should cover the general debate stuff, if you have any questions please ask before the round starts!!!

Best of luck!

LD Specifics:

I will vote on anything if warranted well.

I have solid experience and knowledge of the most popular LD authors and Progressive Debate style.

You are welcome to go into kritiks/plans/theory etc. and I will weigh and judge them just like any other round, but you need to warrant and impact all of it well in order to win the ballot. If you run progressive/technical arguments without a strong framework/foundations, I will usually be stuck voting for the opposition.

Internet/Case sharing depends on tournament rules and the consent/support of both debaters. If you want to send each other cases or evidence feel free to do so, just please make it quick.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

Hi everyone!

I am a parent judge and have only ever judged Congress before. I will be voting off who presents the more clear argument and who is able to prove their side best.

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

Background:

I was a collegiate NPDA debater for four years, a middle school parliamentary and high school LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Speech coach for three and a half years, and a debate judge for three years. I also served as the debate league co-coordinator for the Crescent City Debate League in New Orleans for three years.

Things I Look For:

As a judge, two things are important to uphold the integrity of a debate round: education and clash. Due to this, my paradigm is rooted in these two concepts.

1. Organization is important: I like when the speaker has a clear and concise roadmap for me to follow as a judge. Points and subpoints are appreciated as well as well explained links when defending argumentation.

2. Sources- if the idea was informed by research, then site your sources.

3. If an argument is not addressed, then it flows through. Unaddressed argumentation can lead to low point wins- be sure to address main points and refute them as much as possible.

4. Humans are fallible, BUT the flow is infallible- it is important that debaters take sound notes in debate rounds to be aware of the arguments of their opponent. This assists with point 3 and ensures that no one's arguments are misrepresented in favor of an attempt to get a cheap win.

5. I despise cheap shots- uphold the integrity of debate and show respect of your opponent by not making egregiously false and easily refutable, overarching claims. This includes, but is not limited to: claiming your opponent has said something they clearly did not say (i.e. "Even my opponent agrees with me" when they did not agree with you), saying something unfounded or refutable (i.e. "There are more people in prison than college"), grand and sweeping generalizations (i.e. "Everyone agrees with me"), disrespectful speech (i.e. "If my opponent were smart, they would know..."), discriminatory speech toward persons due to race, gender identity, religion, cred, belief system, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or sexuality.

6. That being said, I WILL NOT remind debaters of argumentation nor will I correct misrepresentation of points. I expect debaters to identify and respectfully defend their points in round. I will only step in as a judge if discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful speech is used.

7. Feel free to speed within reason. If you cannot be understood, then you risk losing points because I cannot understand your argument. Keep a good pace and I will be able to understand most speaking speeds.

8. While eye contact is not necessary, it is appreciated. Reading off of a paper without looking up takes away the gravity of your speech. Speaking is most effective when the speaker captivates the room through eye contact.

*** Most importantly, have fun and breathe. Debate is a wonderful forum to express ideas and consider differing points of view. While wins are great accomplishments, it is what takes place within the debate that truly transforms us. Debate equips us with the ability to engage with arguments that are different than ours intelligently and respectfully. Respectful oratory discourse is an invaluable skill.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

Please weight and be respectful.

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

UNC '20

Former 4-year congressional debater (11th in the senate at NSDA Nationals in 2016), also extensively coached PF at my high school. Coaching congressional debate privately now off and on. For PF, I can handle any speed you throw at me within the realms of general acceptability in PF, and I'm good on the flow. If for some reason I can't keep up, I'll let you know. I like funny debates, but there's a fine line between being funny and being a jerk – be nice, especially if you're destroying a team, or your speaker points will suffer as a result.

School strikes
Charlotte Catholic High School

Public Forum
Sparknotes Version:

• I'm normally able to tell myself I know what's going on - I understand most of the positions people read
• Good debating trumps good evidence any day - I rarely call for cards unless I don't think I'll be able to make a decision without them
• Cross-x is binding - I love debaters who use it well
• I reward debaters who can explain complex positions without relying on buzzwords/jargon
• My favorite debates are case debates (defense, impact turns, whatever)
• I'm tab minus blatant bigotry in round. I reserve the right to drop you if I find your argument too offensive to belong within the realm of academic debate (you're doing something seriously wrong if this happens)
• Off-time roadmaps are a vestige from policy, unless you're doing something really weird in your speech save us all five seconds and just start

Specifics:

Prep time starts when the other team begins reading the evidence they requested.

Start with framework at the top of all rebuttals, give me a way to evaluate the round. I prefer crisp, clear framework debates – give me an intuitive way to prefer your framework. I am more than willing to listen to "we win under both frameworks, here's why" – but make that clear to me.

I'd prefer summary to be (selective) line-by-line and final focus to be voters, but whatever floats your boat. I'm here to judge, not tell you what to do, but a really well-executed line-by-line in summary may earn you bonus points from me. I don't need to hear every argument in summary, but I think that you need to give me two or three portions of the debate narrowed down. Again, not gonna take speaks away if you don't, just my preference and makes my flow pretty clean. Kicking out of arguments is more than fine in summary.

Final focus should extend straight from summary – I will not buy any offense dropped in summary but brought up again in final focus. You don't get to basically make new responses/arguments in FF, especially if you're second speaker. FF should be weighing/voters. Don't be abusive, this activity is supposed to be fun.

Extensions: Make extensions clear – don't make me go back to my flow to try to figure out what on earth you're trying to talk about. Give me a point of reference for the evidence/warrant so I know where to go back to.

Theory: I am very reluctant to accept theory in PF. Make of that what you will. If you feel the need to, go for it, but know that I will be somewhat perturbed. I default to rejecting the argument, not the team, unless you can give me a compelling reason why. Just debate the topic instead, and you won't have to worry about this entire little mini-paragraph.

Evidence: For the love of god, don't make up evidence. This mean either a) fabricating evidence completely, b) misconstruing evidence to reach a different conclusion than the authors intended, or c) clipping cards. If there's an evidence challenge, be damn sure you want to go through with the challenge. If you call a challenge and I decide your challenge was unfounded, there's a very very very high likelihood you get dropped on the spot. In the same stead, if I decide that you have fabricated evidence, I will not vote for you. End of story. Integrity is important, don't throw it away for a win that won't mean anything in four years (or less, sorry but it's true).

Congress:

Based loosely on the paradigm of Phil Hedayatnia, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan... you get the point.

First, you're always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be shorter than I'd like.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: If you give a speech past the first affirmative and you don't refute a single speaker, you will not be ranked on my ballot (in a circuit-level round). Pretty simple. Pre-empt, refute, crystallize, I don't care how you do it, but REFUTE SOMEONE. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate.

Evidence: You need at least two pieces of evidence per speech, preferably 3-4. That being said, I'll take two high-quality pieces of evidence over four garbage think pieces any day of the week. Explain your evidence, and note the bias of sources. Professors writing studies/journal articles and meta-analyses are the gold standard, books are great, newspaper articles (that are not editorials) are alright. Don't use blatantly biased sources; if you're good enough to bother reading this, you know what those are. If you don't explain your evidence, I'm not going to view your speech favorably (and that's definitely going to hurt your rank).

Analysis: This preferably should come in the form of refutation-laced analysis, but I'll take what I can get. Explain why your argument is correct/more important. Don't use debate jargon (flow, cross-apply, etc), but I want to hear something along the lines of "this is more important/this is preferable because...". Analysis is NOT a placeholder for evidence; analysis backs up evidence. Good analysis will help you, but if you're analyzing bullshit, I'm gonna know.

Organization: Don't use more than two contentions, don't use roadmaps, and make sure your speech logically flows. Make yourself memorable. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are. Set yourself apart. One contention speeches? Perfectly fine. One contention and then straight refutation? Fine by me, I did this all the time. Straight refutation (that's clear)? Sounds good. Crystallization? Cool. Don't make your format crazy, but play around - you don't have to stick to the stock two constructive contentions format.

Delivery: I think delivery (and personality) are very important. If I don't think you're having fun/you care, you're not going to end up on my ballot. Solid and clear delivery is basically a prerequisite for me evaluating your arguments. If you have no content, you won't get ranked, but if you have no personality or lack delivery skills, you probably won't be ranked either. There's a middle ground here, find it. I absolutely loved humor, and if you can make me (or the chamber) laugh, consider that bonus points. I will never mark you down for making a joke unless it is offensive (use your judgment), or it detracts from the quality of your speech. I gave a morning hour at the TOC on North Carolina's elevator queen, Cherie Berry – I have a decent sense of humor. That being said, if you aren't funny, you aren't going to lose my ballot for not trying to be. Be an engaging speaker, and you'll get ranked.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds.

Also, I don't care about your circuit politics, who's friends with who, all that bullshit – if you're good, you get ranked. Congress is a political event, use your friendships to actively help yourself. Don't actively exclude people, but I don't consider it evil for you to have friends in round/on the circuit. People need to get over themselves.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not going to impress me at all. I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'll (most likely) rank you up and view you favorably.

Questions: This is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: They're annoying as hell. Unless everyone's agreeing to it, or the bill needs it to function, please skip them. Shaming people for not voting for your amendment in your speech is childish.

And finally, Presiding: Good presiding officers can win a chamber for me, even in a national circuit final round. Bad POs will not be ranked. If you are flawless and in command of the round, expect top 3 or 4 from me (with some exceptions). If you mess up more than once or twice, you won't get ranked. We're all human, but I presided a lot, I know it's easy (I used to prep and write speech outlines while I presided), and I expect a lot.

If you have any questions, just ask.

do good rank good

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).

I was a past competitor on the national circuit, so don't worry, I'm not a lay judge. I do flow, and that's my primary metric for judging so I'm definitely about 75/25 on the content/delivery split.

Other than that, I have a pretty simple paradigm:

1. Refute (a lot and well) without resorting to straw-manning.

2. Have unique arguments and analyze them well.

3. Please source well (as in the quality of your source and your citation). "Harvard in 2016" is not a citation. Make it so that I would be able to look up your source and find it with minimal effort.

4. I love CX. I probably shouldn't weigh it so heavily in ranking, but I do. If you're the best questioner in the round, you'll probably get ranked (regardless of speeches).

5. Have fun. Judges and competitors both hate sitting through 3 hours without any comedy or roasts or emotion of some sort. Keeping the round entertaining makes it tolerable for both me and you.

Background:

I've completed in the congressional debate circuit for three years in North Carolina, I have also judged Congressional Debate for nearly three years. I'm truly passionate about Congressional Debate and love when the debate comes to life. I enjoy Foreign Policy debate the most based on my personal interests.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate revolves around one singular question, "who is the most convincing and strong legislator in the room?" There is many different ways to achieve this, via strong speeches, debate, or overall control of the room. A truly strong Congressional Debater will understand all of the major characteristic required to control the room, and thus will rank the highest on my ballot.

Speeches in Congressional Debate aren't supposed to be rehearsed multiple times, after the first affirmative and negative speeches there are elements of rebuttal that should be implemented into speech. These speeches should contain sources that connect to your main arguments and have a full flow into your final argument. If you're making points - they should have a reason and an end point.

Controlling the room and POing is one of the most daunting thing for new debaters, but I also highly value these people because the debate would simply not exist without a PO.

I love listening to congressional debate, and if you ever find yourself lost don't hesitate to reach out!

Former coach, more often in tab rooms than at the back of the room with a ballot, electronic or otherwise. As a judge, I’m probably considered a very traditional flow judge. I’m likely not as well-read on the resolution as you are, haven’t taught LD in any camp or class, and don’t judge LD especially often. To me, a good LD round involves a debate between two individuals using logic, reason, and clarity around the resolution at hand; if I find myself open to critical approaches to the resolution I’ll update my paradigm accordingly.

No exhaustive list of my thoughts on different arguments, though these 3 are pretty representative of my general thoughts on LD:

1. Disclosure theory is a non-starter. Use it if you want, but I will not vote on the basis of whose case is or isn’t on the wiki so in front of me it’s a waste of time.

2. I’m not interested in time skew. I trust that you were aware of the structure of an LD round before walking into the tournament.

3. Debate is an educational activity. The role of the ballot is to communicate to you, your opponent, and your coach(es) observations about how effective your argumentation was in a given round and offer suggestions for improvement. The ballot may be an opportunity for me to learn and grow as well, but my ballot will not affect grand societal change no matter how hard we try.

I ultimately want to vote for something at the end of the round. To accomplish this, take the following into account:

1. Like I said, I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2. I don’t want cases flashed to me or share a Google Doc during the round. If I wanted to read argumentation I would pursue competitive essay-grading.

3. Your ideas and those of your opponent should engage with one another. Trying to cram as many responses against each point made by your opponent doesn’t do this and won’t help you win my ballot or earn very high speaker points. Neither will ignoring your opponent’s case and insisting that yours is the only thing that matters in the round.

4. Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.

Ms. Weaver is a history teacher, specializing in Civics & Government, and early American History. She has a BS in Social Studies Education from East Carolina University and an MEd in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus in Social Studies from Concordia University.

I am so happy to judge you! In speech - let me know if you want time signals! In debate - please don't spread, if I can't understand what you're saying then I can't get your points. In congress - please please please do not keep extending questioning, it's pointless - also, be sure that you are always trying to keep the chamber moving, avoid rehash, and AT ALL COSTS avoid a one-sided debate.

Background:

My high school and college experience consists mostly of public speaking, speech, and student government involvement. I also have an extensive performance and theatre background.

I graduated from University of Florida with a B.A. in Political Science, with a focus in Constitutional History & Education. I then went on to obtain my M.Ed., focusing on Secondary Social Studies Education.

Speech & Debate Judging Experience:

I currently work closely with the newly formed Navarre High School Speech & Debate Team. The NHS team is coached by Meghan Rodriguez, who trained me to judge.

I have traveled to and been a judge at several local and regional tournaments, and have also served as a judge for two National Tournaments. I am most comfortable judging speech events, including Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Program of Oral Interpretation, and Original Oratory. My specialty, however, is Congress.

I look for sharp, fluid speakers, who are animated and engaging. I want to forget the outside world when you are speaking, to forget that this is an event. You should be natural, flexible to your environment, and your performance should not seem over-rehearsed.

In Congress, I expect informed and succinct speeches that adapt to the mock Congress setting/dialogue/debate and do not rehash. There is no need to attack, but feel free to address other speeches when necessary and pertinent. Speak clearly - your speech is not a race.