I am judging Congress so my judging criteria will determine to see if Speaker

- follows Congressional Debate Rules

- is clear on Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact

- Arguments and reasoning is clear

- Provide clear evidence especially if your opponent's ask for it

On Delivery:

- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. if I can't flow I don't follow

- Be Clear. I come from engineering background, so I am keen on logic and reasoning in your content. Present your case with clarity.

- Be respectable and have empathy. Your rebuttals should not be just attack on the opponent, you need to defend rationally. In crossfire, don't waste words in stupid arguments please show humility. Do not be rude or condescending.

- Stay focussed, summarize quickly to remove any vagueness, don't digress

Needless to state again, please follow the Congressional Debate Rule to the dot.

Good Luck

My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a rising junior at George Washington University in D.C. and I competed in Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (Emory), Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research)

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

I prioritize arguments and clash over basic speaking ability. However, I also require clarity when speaking. That means roadmaps, transitions, and no spreading. Professionality and efficiency look great, especially for Presiding Officers.

Congress
I competed primarily in this event on the state and national circuits. I look for
1. content and interactions within the arguments that are made in the round
This means having robust argumentation and relevant refutation. Pinpoint the biggest arguments of the round and interact with them somehow. I pretty much expect the round to go author -> constructives -> decent refutation -> crystals.
2. rhetoric that is appropriate for the theme of the speech/argument and is meaningful
3. delivery (fluency, appropriate tone and variation).
Traditional CX is not that important to me, just answer the question. Direct CX is more meaningful, and how well you do here does indicate to me how confident you are in your own arguments, so don't take this too lightly.
The PO does NOT start with the 1 and get dropped per mistake, but they're very likely to place in my top 8 (where in the T8 depends on how well you do versus the quality of debate in the round). POs that frequently make mistakes will probably not place in my top 8.

Extemp
This was sort of my secondary event. I'm looking for a thesis/umbrella that does actually respond to the question, and each of your points to fit under the umbrella and have a direct response to the question as well. Speakers that can provide specific context for their arguments will place well. In general I look for content > delivery, however delivery is still important; having transitions and effective AGDs/conclusions (along with basic delivery things like fluency) will probably help your rank in the round.

Debate
I pretty much never did PF/LD/CX so more nuanced argumentative techniques are lost on me. Please don't read theory or Ks or whatever, I don't really know how to evaluate them so I will probably end up voting you down lol. Overall, treating me like a relatively experienced lay judge is your best bet, big thing for me is just signpost really well so I can clearly see where you're at/ what you're responding to. I'll likely give 30 speaker points unless I really felt that I couldn't understand you.

Other IEs
Never did them, so I'm just looking for a good performance.

Policy: This is my favorite style of debate. Please don't disappoint. Spreading is ok. Please be organized, because I like to flow the round. I will side with the negative until the affirmative proves the solvency of their plan thoroughly, burden lies on the affirmative to change the status quo, if a CP is ran, then I will decide who can prove solvency, efficacy and impact of their plan best. Be respectful, but don't be afraid to get into the debate, I like that.

Congress: I will judge based on the quality of the research, organization, overall presence in the room, and thorough understanding of the content. I like to be entertained and engaged throughout the round, so do something cool and find a way to stand out. Don't be afraid to be passionate during the round. It is convincing and that is your job.

Lincoln Douglas: Don't run a K unless you really know how to do it properly. I am fine with progressive or traditional debates. Spreading is fine. Tell me a story with your evidence, don't just read. Believe in what you are saying. Be passionate. Remember delivery should still apply in debate events. Don't bore me. Engage me. Convince me.

I will ask for you to include me on the email chain.

tiara.bergquist@apavegas.org

pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

PF Paradigm: I will flow rounds and expect competitors to acknowledge each point (even if just one sentence to concede). I appreciate thorough research, well-phrased arguments, and I will base on articulation. While I do like arguments based on technicalities (i.e. round definitions), I like framework to not take over the whole round (and if you don't provide me a framework then I will default to CBA).

Please don't spew unless you enunciate really well.

Congress Paradigm: Congress is about decorum. There is a tasteful way to disagree with competitors. I'm well familiarized with the Rules of Order and NSDA rules on Congress, and you should be too. Competitors who offer new viewpoints and new evidence will rank higher even if they are not flawless speakers. Make it interesting and have fun!

Chairs: If you run to chair, you are expected to run the round smoothly. You don't need to know every rule, but if your peers are hindered by your unpreparedness then you will rank lower. A good chair makes the round pass by quickly and efficiently. I will be tracking speaker precedents.

Extemp Paradigm: While I enjoy the cookie-cutter speech template, I love to see someone take a risk. Offer me a hot-take or some really interesting research.

My background:

3rd year Pre-Law PoliSci student. I did PF, Extemp, and Congress all four years of high school and competed at NSDA nationals every year. You can assume I've done some basic research on the topic/docket of the round.

I'm a college student, and competed at NCFL and NSDA in Lincoln Douglas debate.

LD- I like more traditional style of debate but won't count off if the style is not how I debate. I want to be able to hear you so don't speak too fast, but also get in all you need to say. I take intensive flows and will pick a winner based on who won the most arguments in the debate.

Congress- I have done and won in congress, and like the speakers to be charming but still taking the session seriously. A joke or two is fine but making the whole session one is not how congress should be done. The PO should keep the chamber as under control as possible.

I'm so excited to be judging!

Good luck!

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 have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.

The best thing to do is ask my before round so I can easily explain everything. However, for the basics, I consider myself a tab judge. You tell me how to evaluate the round, and that is what I will do. I do not want to do the work for you, so if it is not on the flow it doesn’t exist. Speech is a communication event so make sure you are clear and able to be understood. You may spread, but I must be able to understand tags and other important information. I prefer offense over defense in a debate round because defense can become wishy washy. Be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

For specific events, ask in round so I can clarify my stance on each specific nuance of debate events.

For Congress, I prefer debate that actually uses different points and refutation of the different ideas presented. I do not want to hear the same thing over and over again. A PO should make sure they are fair and transparent in everything they do so that the room moves efficiently. I want congressional debaters to respect their peers but also provide clash that moves the debate forward in a good manner.

In CX, I vote more on quality than quantity. I want to see debaters analyze cards instead of just reading. Make sure you sign post. I am ok with any argument as long as it is presented properly. If you don’t present it properly then I will not do the work for you.

I was in congressional debate for three years. Two-time national qualifier, section champion, state finalist.

Because of my debate record:

-I am unfamiliar with PF so please consider me a flay judge and go easy on me

-No spreading please, I'd rather you talk through 2-3 arguments that are well extended than rush through 10 little ones where I can't even understand half of what you're saying

-Debate online is foreign to me

-No jargon, if I don't understand what you're saying I won't take it into account

-Please put me in the email chain, anything and everything I can read to help better understand your argument will not only help me but also help you (khanhvydo48@gmail.com)

-I will flow to the best of my ability but again, go slow

-Signposting helps me

-This is my first time judging this season so I am not familiar with the topic at all and please don't use any terms or arguments that I would need prior knowledge for

-I would prefer you not run Theorys/Ks

-Extend! If your argument does not have a strong evidence base I don't want to hear it. I want the how/why of your warrants and why your impact matters.

-Summaries and final focus should be overarching and emphasize the broader picture and impact of your argument, not a mishmash of little arguments

-Be respectful of your opponents. Any snarky remarks towards another person will be taken negatively and will hurt your score

Hello!

I competed for four years in Congressional Debate for Asheville High School. I qualified for CFLS, reached the semifinal round in the Senate at NSDA Nationals in 2020, and have had a solid local career. I currently compete in British Parliamentary Debate for the University of Edinburgh Debates Union. Additionally, I was the co-captain of my team and have recently worked with novices, therefore, I know what a quality speech looks like.

Here is what I value most when judging a round:

I was a presiding officer throughout all four years of competing, and I recognize and appreciate its value. Therefore, I highly consider presiding officers when looking at rankings. If you preside well, I will likely rank you in my top 8.

I appreciate funny intros, but make sure they’re topical. It's important to not use "canned" intros, or intros that you can pull out at any time that apply to any topic. An example would be the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." We’ve all heard it before, please don’t make me hear it again.

Keep in mind that Congressional Debate is just that - debate. While I do appreciate and consider fancy rhetoric and fluent speaking, I will rank someone who makes clear and valid points over someone whose speech sounds pretty, and I will rank someone who does both of those things along with solid refutation above anyone else. I will also value quality of speeches over quantity. If you are passed over on a bill in some way, you will still be considered with everyone who gave a speech on that bill. Please make sure to be interactive with the chamber, though. I will be looking at engagement with the chamber in my rankings. With that in mind, please do not be afraid of moving to previous question if the debate has become rehashy. I can promise that I will like your speech more if it's an early round, unique speech on the next bill than if it's the fourth affirmation speech in a row. Again, Congress is debate, and when the debate has ended, previous question should be called.

Speaking of, there is a difference between refuting speakers and simply name-dropping them. Refutation is legitimately engaging with the material in someone else's speech. For example, saying “Rep. X said this, but my two pieces of evidence prove why they’re wrong,” is refutation. Meanwhile, saying "Rep. X’s point was non-unique so their point falls,” is not refutation. Furthermore, nothing makes it more obvious that you haven’t been listening to the round than saying “representatives on the negation have brought up [blank].” It’s always more impactful to bring up a specific competitor, but make sure you’re bringing them up for a reason and not just because they were on the opposite side and you need to refute someone.

Nothing is more important to me than equity. Inequitable structures and behavior are a huge problem in the debate community, and as a judge, I will take action to ensure that all chambers that I judge are as fair as possible. With that in mind, if you make an outwardly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist comment, I will drop you. I don’t care how well you were doing otherwise, there is no excuse for that behavior. In that same vein, I know that we all love a good, aggressive questioning session, but do make sure that you aren’t speaking over another person. That isn’t fun for the judges to listen to, and it’s not fun for competitors to interact with.

Additionally, when addressing other competitors, make sure to address them as “Representative” or “Senator.” Too many times in this event, I’ve seen men be acknowledged by one of those titles, while women are addressed as “Miss.” I won’t dock points if you forget whether you’re in the Senate or the House, but please address everyone by either “Representative” or “Senator” to ensure equality in the chamber.

Please let me know if you have questions. After a round, feel free to get in contact with me for any additional advice you may want or questions you may have. Good luck!

I highly value extemporaneous speaking and the effective use of evidence to defend any and all claims. The PO starts with my 1 and it is theirs to lose.

Hi!

any pronouns but he :)

Former speech/debate competitor at John F. Kennedy CR, (go cougars!)

third-year varsity debater at GMU (yay patriots!)

overall, If you make offensive arguments expect speaks to be tanked and an L.

Please put me on the email chain 21jfuchs@gmail.com

Policy

don’t change your argument style for me, I have done both styles of debate and appreciate a good debate :)

K-AFFs/FW-- I read K-affs but this doesn't mean I'll auto-vote for you. Explain to me your theory of power and how it operates in the round. I like it when the K aff has some stable advovacy, so that I know what I am voting on but if that isn't you tell me why it doesn't matter. On framework, a good impact turn goes a long ways. For the NEG I'd prefer you have some sort of TVA that is related to the aff in some way. K v K debates are so fun, but they tend to get very messy towards the end so make sure you start out with your offense and what you're winning. I don't find the argument that K-affs shouldn't get perms to be persuadable at all.

K's --- Love them. I have a link to the aff and impact it out. I am more likely to vote on a K without an alt, but you should tell me you are kicking the alt. If you are going for the alt please for the love of god explain how it solves your llnk.

CP's - a good advantage counterplan has my heart. don't forget a net benefit. for the AFF I think too often bad counterplan's are answered with too many cards, I think your aff can answer a lot of these don't get lost in the sauce. Tell me how the perm works, saying the words perm is not a perm in of itself.

Theory -- I can't sit here and say don't go for theory because I was in fact a theory girl, but uh please explain it. Give and interpretation and explain your violation. I think condo can be excessive, but that's for y'all to debate about.

DA's --update your uniqueness <3. I love a DA smackdown, politics DA was my favorite 1NR to give. Tell me why the DA turns the case, I need an explanation and not just the tagline.

T --hot take but these debates can be pretty fun. I think they get pretty messy when your just reading blocks at top speeds. Tell me why X aff explodes into 100 different affs. Use caselist to give me other topical affs. I LOOVVVVE a good T debate.

I don't care what you do as long as y'all keep it interesting and have fun..

My experience includes dong every type of debate except policy. I have gone to nationals twice for Congress and once for World Schools. I have been involved in forensics since 7th grade and I love the activity.

I just want to see a good debate on both sides. Signposting is preferred so I can follow along. Agressivnesss doesnt look good on your part but I cant stop you, so keep it friendly and nice. Good Luck to everyone

I have experience competing, judging, and coaching both Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate and have judged a handful of Novice LD rounds.

For Congress:

60% presentation, 40% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male competitors as 'representative' and female competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. Please give me impacts.

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow CX. You will not be able to speak faster than I will be able to flow. I need impacts, please, and clear taglines. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. If you are rude in CX I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. Also I do not care who the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to know what you are talking about.

For NLD:

I'm new to this, so please speak clearly, give me impacts, and use your value and criterion throughout the round. I won't flow CX and I won't be able to keep up if you go full spread on me. Weigh impacts and condense the debate for me more and more every speech so it is clear what the main issues are.

Affiliations: Middleton High School (WI), Tufts University

Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit. I'm a history and political science double major, so I love seeing historical examples/political theory (not to be confused with debate theory) within cases :)

General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist, but I’m tech over truth as long as you aren’t blatantly lying. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. (If you have to take giant gasps of air when speaking, it's a sign you're going too fast) I'm not the best with too much speed, so I might miss arguments. I will not read speech docs. If I do not hear the argument, it will not be a factor in the round. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy/LD. If you’re fiating something, please make sure your explanation is clear.

Also, please extend (this means your warrant and your impact) your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a brief road map (signposting > roadmap) and weigh. Weighing is extremely important for me. Saying that something pre-reqs something else means absolutely nothing if you haven’t given me a warrant, and I don’t see it as a form of weighing. I will vote for a bad argument weighed well over a good argument weighed poorly. Meta-weigh if you have to. If your opponents are weighing on probability and you're weighing on magnitude, tell me why I should prefer probability over magnitude. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us.

Lastly, if you're going to read triggering arguments, read a trigger warning and make sure everyone's okay with you running that kind of contention before case/before the round.

Theory/Prog Arguments: I don't like theory, but I am willing to keep an open mind.

Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to hebaemail618@gmail.com.

Speaks: Please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc.

Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

I'm Sarah and I am a parent judge. This is my sixth year of speech and debate. Keep cross-ex strong but respectful. I'm looking for clash between both sides, so if you want to win, show me where your case clashes with your opponents.

Do not spread!! I am not 20. I don't process information as fast as teenagers speak it when you're spreading. I don't want to be on your email chain-- if I can't HEAR your argument, I won't flow it or take it into consideration.

Double tag all of your main arguments and contentions if you want them down on my flow.

I am a college professor (media and journalism studies) at Cuyahoga Community College. BA Wabash College. MA The Ohio State University. Ed.S. Kent State University. I've been coaching HS debate and speech since 2008 at two Ohio high schools, and in both my first students to "break" beyond preliminaries in State Finals did so in Congressional Debate.

CONGESS

Long before beginning my coaching career I worked in the U.S. Senate, where I ghost-wrote numerous speeches and op-eds for my Senator. I became a HS debate/speech coach in 2008. In that time, I've coached dozens of Congress competitors, including at least a dozen to Ohio's OSDA State Finals, and eight to the NSDA National Tournament. I've judged HS/MS Congress at Nationals on and off going back to 2016 (Salt Lake City).

In judging, I use the NSDA rubric and also look hard for what I call "excellent sewing." If you employ a strong opening story or example, make sure the "threads" of it extend well to your key points, the warrants you utilize, and the impacts you present. Stitch it perfectly! If you are the 4th, 5th, or 6th speaker for or against a bill, I expect clash and/or new insight in what you say. If you simply repeat previous warrants and use already-cited warrants, don't expect a high score. If you crystallize, make 100% sure you correctly cover points and speakers for both sides. If you create clash and/or provide a fresh approach for or against a bill/resolution, you have much better odds of a top score.

I've judged Congress many times and places than I can remember, and served as a parliamentarian at NSDA Nationals and at Princeton. Won't bore you with the specifics.

PUBLIC FORUM

A + R + E = decisions.

A = Argumentation. How well are developed is your constructive?

R = Rebuild/Refute -- How well do you attack your opponent's constructive? Using what? How well to you rebuild your own arguments (when attacked)? With what?

E = Evidence. -- Looking at quality, quantity, and how well you use the evidence yo present.

Speak as fast or as slow as you like. As long as I can understand your arguments, you're fine.

Cross X -- be purposeful, and make your purpose plain as the round develops.

Summary -- only new arguments I'll entertain is if the previous speaker (other side) presented something which needs an answer or a refutation.

Final focus -- never introduce new arguments.

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim,

I am a parent and an assistant coach at Redlands High School, have been judging Congress for about 6 years now, and I am very excited to see all the amazing, talented speakers today.

As a judge, I evaluate the "Best Legislator" in the chamber based on a demonstration of various skills, not just speaking. I often use the congressional debate rubric chart. This means I evaluate basic skills as well as participation in setting the agenda, making motions, asking questions, as well as content, argumentation, refutation, flow and delivery. Most importantly, I'm looking for effort, passion, and consistent participation in the round. Just because you gave a good speech doesn't mean you get an automatic good rank. You need to show you are engaged with the chamber. Also being a well rounded debater is very important for me. During rounds, I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Any speech after the first cycle should be referencing other speakers in the round and you should be utilizing refutation. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Providing evidence is very important for me.

I will try to be as fair and just as possible, so enjoy the experience and be respectful during the round!!!

Thank you.

What I’m Looking For-Congressional Debate:

Clash: Please refute speakers. Avoid giving rehashed and stock arguments, tell me an impact about the debate I don’t already know! I understand how getting dropped in precedence sucks but don’t let it mess with your argumentation.

Evidence: Make sure your sources are credible!! Be sure to include the name, year, and preferably the author. That being said, don’t source stack. Back your facts with strong rhetoric to enhance to claim you’re trying to make.

Speaking: Though I value content over delivery, presentation in congress still matters. Be conversational, make eye contact, be purposeful with your hand gestures

POs: Run a fast, Fair, and efficient chamber. Speed is important, but make sure you’re accurately following precedence and recency.

Be nice: Don’t be rude! Make sure you’re respecting other members in the chamber; don’t screw someone over to give another speech. Motions should be made for the benefit of the chamber, not yourself.

I will be expecting clear articulation and logical presentation. While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.  As for rate of spread, unless your diction is crisp, keep rate to a 3 on the spread scale.

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. Clear signposts within your presentation are also helpful. I will be expecting clear and precise sponsorship speeches and logical class refutation.

Hello to anyone who is reading this paradigm. For a quick outline to find specific information it will go My Experience, LD Paradigm, Policy Paradigm, PFD Paradigm, and Congress Paradigm.

Experience - I have been involved in competitive speech and debate for almost a decade either competing or judging. In high school, I competed in all of the public address events specializing in the Extemps. On the debate side, I regularly competed in Congress, and I also did WSD, PFD, and BQD. I am currently in College competing on the College circuit. For a brief academic background, I am a Masters Student in Communication Studies specializing in rhetoric and persuasion with a background in political theory. I have judged many times and have judged late-out rounds at several large tournaments. I am a Coach at the high school level as well, coaching the debate events and extemps.

LD Paradigm

Value/VC Debate————X—————Contention debate

(Clear) Speed—————————X—Normal Speech (I will drop for excessive speed)

Competing interps——————X——Resonability

Tech———————————————X Truth

“This isn’t policy”—X————————“Policy arguments” fine (If you make a policy argument link it directly to the Value)

Credentials --X---------------------- Smith 19

K———————————————X—Not K

More Cards——————————X—Better cards

More Cards———————X————Longer Cards

Links more important————X-———Imp more important (Make sure to explain why xyz is persuasive/influential.)

Policy Paradigm

Policymaker paradigm

(Clear) Speed—————————X—Normal Speech (I will drop for excessive speed)

CP------------------------X-----No CP (I prefer traditional debates, however, if you run a CP make sure it is mutually exclusive.)

Topicality --------------------X----- No Topicality (In my opinion, T is not to be used as a weapon. Thus I only consider T if you are only running T and pretty much nothing else.)

Credentials --X---------------------- Smith 19

K———————————————X—Not K

More Cards——————————X—Better cards

More Cards———————X————Longer Cards

Links more important————-——X—Imp more important (Make sure to explain why xyz is persuasive/influential.)

PFD Paradigm

(Clear) Speed—————————X—Normal Speech (I will drop for excessive speed)

Credentials --X---------------------- Smith 19

K———————————————X—Not K

More Cards——————————X—Better cards

More Cards———————X————Longer Cards

Links more important————-——X—Imp more important (Make sure to explain why xyz is persuasive/influential.)

Congress Paradigm

• Style - First 4 speakers on a bill must lay out foundational arguments with the 3rd and 4th speakers doing light refutation. Every speaker after that must at least attempt to respond to other speakers before them or will not likely place high on my ballot.

• CX - Remain active in asking cross as I use it to break ties. For those answering, be on your toes, as I do take cx answers into account for your rank.

• Arguments - I do not generally find arguments saying the bill is unconstitutional very interesting or persuasive. I will read the legislation, so if you quote a line make sure to use it correctly.

• Professionalism - Try not to emulate the behavior of some current members of congress. Be respectful to your opponents and engage constructively with their arguments. You will lose ranks for being unprofessional.

I am a parent judge, although I did compete in forensics competitions in high school.

My Speaking Style Preferences are as follows:

I appreciate assertiveness when presenting arguments and debating, but only when that assertiveness does not get in the way of a civil and professional demeanor.

Make sure to speak clearly and at an understandable pace. I will not be able to judge you on arguments that I can’t understand when they’re presented.

Also make sure you stick to your time limits, and please don’t go too far over since that puts the opponents at a disadvantage.

As for argumentation:

The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round.

If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure to carry it through your speeches so that I can follow it through the debate, I cannot judge you on arguments I cannot follow.

Your arguments should be topical, I will not vote on arguments which are not connected to the topic.

As a final note,

I know that all debaters have prepared themselves extensively, which I very much appreciate. Make sure to remember that the goal of debate is to learn and grow as well as have fun. Good luck!

I am looking for clear speeches with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important. Strong argumentation and good use of evidence.

I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.

The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.

6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.

7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.

Policy

1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.

2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.

3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.

4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.

5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.

6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.

7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.

Congress:

I did congress for four years and graduated from Plano West in 2020. For speakers, just make it a good debate and not boring. I feel like the idea of a good congress speech is self-explanatory. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. I want to believe that kids in congressional debate have a better ability to be kind than those in the actual congress.

I notice when competitors are super cliquey in the round. It's really obvious when a group of debaters already know the PO well and all get good precedence.

For POs -- Please don't waste time, don't let the speakers waste time either, don't be biased, and you can expect T3 from me.

Extemp:

My high school was pretty good at extemp so while I personally wasn't really competing much in the event, I know what a good extemp speech looks like. A good structure in your points will take you a long way.

For any other event:

I am a lay judge. :)

Edit for pwsh 2021: Please make an effort to clearly say what argument you're responding to. Don't just throw out a line and expect me to instantly place it in the context of the round and the argument you want. I am very dumb and slow.

** PF Paradigm**

I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail

Short stuff

1. Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.

2. Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.

3. Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.

4. Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me where to flow stuff

5. I am not perfect. sorry if I mess up

Evidence

• Pull up evidence quickly.

1st summary/final focus

• 1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.

• 1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.

• 1st summary doesn’t need to weigh.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.

2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus

• 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.

• No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.

• Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.

• 2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.

• I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.

Extensions

• Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.

• My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.

• Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.

Disclosure

• If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +.5 speaker points.

• I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.

• Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.

Theory

• I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.

• Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.

• If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.

• Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.

Other Progressive Args

• I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.

Speed

• I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed (edit: not so sure how true this is anymore), but if you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.

• If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.

• Send speech docs if you’re going fast.

• If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.

Weighing

• I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing earlier in the round.

Cross

• Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.

Speaks

• My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)

Misc.

• Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.

• Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.

• If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.

• If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.

• Pause when you switch flows please!!

• Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.

World Schools Debate is a format that emphasizes not only individual speaking skills but also teamwork, collaboration, and a comprehensive understanding of global issues.

Here's my judging paradigm:

• Evaluate the extent to which team members collaborate effectively.
• Consider how well they build on each other's arguments and contribute to the overall team strategy.
• Reward teams that demonstrate unity and a shared vision.

• Assess the clarity, fluency, and persuasiveness of each debater's speeches.
• Consider the ability to engage the judge, use effective rhetoric, and maintain composure under pressure.
• Reward debaters who demonstrate versatility in their speaking styles.

• Evaluate the strength and relevance of arguments presented by each team.
• Consider the depth of analysis, quality of evidence, and logical reasoning.
• Reward teams that exhibit a nuanced understanding of the motion and provide innovative perspectives.

• Assess the team's ability to engage with opposing arguments effectively.
• Consider the quality of rebuttals, counterarguments, and the ability to exploit weaknesses in the opponent's case.
• Reward debaters who actively contribute to the clash in a constructive and strategic manner.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the POI in extracting relevant information and challenging the opponent's case.
• Consider the ability to remain composed and focused during cross-examination the POI.
• Reward debaters who utilize POIs as a strategic tool.

• Assess the depth of knowledge and understanding of global issues.
• Consider how well debaters integrate global perspectives into their arguments.
• Reward teams that demonstrate a comprehensive awareness of international affairs.

• Evaluate the professionalism, courtesy, and respect exhibited by the debaters.
• Consider adherence to time limits and rules, as well as respectful engagement with opponents.
• Deduct points for any conduct that goes against the spirit of fair competition.

• Time Management: Deduct points for exceeding allotted speaking times.
• Presentation: Consider the use of hand gestures, eye contact, and the overall professionalism of the presentation.
• Adaptability: Reward debaters who demonstrate flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments or shifts in the debate.

With Policy Debate, I am kinda sorta lenient on speech style and I find myself fixating on the validity of arguments and the analysis of arguments being made- meaning clarify and extend your warrants, no cap.

This does not mean I will vote up speakers who are sloppy and have speeches that make no sense, because I will not, like make it make sense smh my head. Speed is not an issue for me, you will not be speaking too fast for me at any time, as long as you signpost and slow down on your tags and analytics and stuff ykyk, so I can flow. As long as you can speak quickly and with clarity, I will be fine with speed.

I have done two years of policy debate, with competitive success in both the KDC and Varsity divisions.

In the event that someone doesn't speak clearly, I will put down my flow and tune out for the rest of the speech (and also vote them down lmao).

For Disadvantages and Kritiks, they should have an aff-specific link for more commonly found affirmative (but I will be lenient on this rule in the case that an aff is small/niche).

DAs: I mostly dislike the usage of generic links because they tend to be weak and are not really applicable to all affirmative cases under the resolution, from my experience. I prefer politics disads to anything else, I think they're the strongest type of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flip tf out if you run some other form of disadvantage. The disadvantage is easily my favorite argument that can be made on the neg. I debated a lot in the KDC division (classical style debate) in which disadvantages are predominantly used as neg offense. Make sure the disadvantage is unique and has a strong link chain leading to the impact. I strongly dislike disadvantages with a nonsensical link chain or have an impact of nuke war/global pandemic from 2010, because it's stupid, and the timeframe for that has OBVIOUSLY elapsed. I prefer more real-world impacts of structural violence, racism, discrimination-based violence.

Ks: I've read Cap, Neolib, Fem, SetCol + variants, and Orientalism K in round and debated against Queer Theory (from what I can remember), but I have read some other K lit with a decent level of understanding- mostly BioPTX and Antiblackness. I also dislike weak generic link arguments with kritiks- I believe there's a lot of merits to the Kritik. Make sure that your alt guarantees solvency of the res. and plan's shortcomings as outlined in your Kritik and tell me why we should prefer the world of the alt to the world of the aff. Tell me WHY the world of the aff is bad and how the aff leads to your impact/impacts. You should able to refute arguments made on the Kritik, it's kinda wiggity wack if you can't and you're running it tbh. I prefer methodology and epistemology to ontology in Kritikal debates if I am not told to think otherwise. For the Kritik I'm open to more impacts than I would be with a disadvantage, especially with the nature of a kritik, but I prefer impacts of societal/ecological collapse, worsening of status quo, etc.

Topicality: I like topicality, but not as much as disadvantages and kritiks. If it gets to the point that the 2NC is 8 minutes of Topicality, you better do a good job analyzing the T debate. I will vote for T if it is/ I am told it is the main voter/argument present in round, otherwise I will vote for other arguments being made. If the aff provides a counterinterpretation, tell me why I should prefer your interpretation to theirs. I am not too huge on debating credibility (in general) of sources as opposed to the actual warrants of the definition. Otherwise with crebility on T, my hierarchy for credible sources is pretty simple:

1. Supreme Court Rulings/International Court Rulings/International Bodies

2. Governmental Organizations/Academics + Experts on the Topic

3. Mainstream Media

4. Dictionaries

for voters on topicality, I prefer education based voters. I don't really want to hear anything else as a voter because at the end of the day, education gained/lost should matter more than anything else in the round.

Counterplans: I'm not a huge fan of them, because solvency usually doesn't match with the counterplan text in its entirety, but I am not completely closed off to the idea of them. They are just my least favorite argument used for neg offense.

PICS and PiKs: It is the affirmative's burden to prove PICS are abusive/don't rok if they are run, or stay pressed idc. Neg can do a PiK in one sentence (i.e. "do the aff in the world of the alt" or sum (pls slow down for it tho)) and I would still count it as an argument that must be responded to.

K Affs: I'm mostly unfamiliar with K Affs, I've read some K Affs on Open Evidence, but I don't entirely grasp or prefer the structure of K Affs.

Theory: I like debating on theory, especially when used to prove abuse/no abuse in the round. But I dislike hearing the same, stale blocks that anyone can get from Open Evidence. Like ong where's the FLAVOR

Framing: I love hearing debates on framing and seeing affs that provide framing because they give me a lens to look through the round with instead of forcing me to rely on my own lens of interpretation. Framing is quite important to me because in most rounds it can determine a win/loss by telling me what to prioritize in the round. When both aff and neg provide frameworks, I must be given a reason to prefer one framework over the other.

Other:

* I hate arguments saying racism good, sexism good, poverty good, etc. I will vote you down for running them. If you reading framing saying that racism is good- I pretend I don't see it.

* I get triggered by descriptive narratives of rape, domestic violence/sexual violence/abuse, suicide, and mental illness. These can be briefly mentioned in round, but if you fail to provide a content warning and read such narratives, I will leave the round for that speech and will be pressed frfr *100 emoji*.

*Be fair to your opponent and show good sportsmanship. Don't be rude/condescending to them and respect them, their pronouns, and triggers. Don't run arguments that invalidate an opponent's identity intentionally bc that makes you literal trash.

*Flash quickly- when using flashdrives, I don't want a copy, I will flow what I can understand from you.

I debated for Millard South for 3 years. I mainly debated in Congress, and went to several national circuit debates and went to NSDA Nationals for Congress. I also have experience on every form of debate. (PF, LD, Policy, and Congress.) Although I am most familiar with Congress, and PF.

This is my fourth year of judging and coaching debate.

Here is my email if you need to contact me: Liamsingleton007@gmail.com

General:

Please just be respectful to your peers. This is an activity that is meant to be fun. Don't be rude to people.

I understand people have different views, but it doesn't take that much effort to just be kind of people.

Also, please don't speak while your opponents are talking. (Mainly just asking/answering questions, or giving speeches.)

I understand for PF, and Policy. But Congress, it's especially rude.

On the topic of Anecdotal evidence. I personally like anecdotal evidence, but don't leave it by itself. If you want to link it to yourself, go for it. But give empirical evidence to support your claim so it doesn't sound like your a stand alone case. It will also make you sound more credible as a speaker.

On that, CLAIM < WARRANT < IMPACT. Every time you make a claim, give evidence to support your claim, and give the impact of your claim with your warrant. If you don't give a warrant, it makes it sound like a personal opinion.

Public Forum:

I will typically flow almost everything that I can. But you still need to explain all of your impacts to me in the Summary and Final Focus.

I do not time you, that is your job to keep track of.

I pay attention to a lot of things during the debate, and especially the little things. I don't normally like to use the word abusive, but if I notice that in questioning you're not allowing your opponents to ask questions. I will most likely address it, and take some speaker points off.

I will rarely deem things as inappropriate. Look at General Section.

On the topic of speed. I don't mind going at a moderately fast pace. But if you start spreading. I will just stop flowing.

If you want to spread, you must give your case to both me, and your opponents so ensure fairness. Vice versa for your opponents.

I will also typically expect you to take all of your time, both for your speeches and for your prep time. You have the time to make arguments, so make them. It will only help you.

Congress:

I am very knowledgeable about Congress. I know the rules, how a round should look, and how everyone should be acting.

Rehash is my least favorite part about Congress. Please do not rehash. (Rehash is saying the same argument as someone who had previously already said the same thing, and not adding anything new to the debate.) Now, on that. If you do have a point someone has said before, but new information they didn't say. Then that's not rehash.

Just make sure you are always adding more to the debate, but on that note. Do not bring up new information in questioning. This is both rude and abusive towards your opponents because you are asking them questions about evidence they do not have. If the information has been given in a speech before, then it is fine. But beyond that, in NSDA rules, it is not allowed.

Also, I prefer quality over quantity. If you give one or two amazing speeches during the whole day, while someone else gave 4 or 5 sub par speeches. I will most likely favor you. I also like people who use up their whole time, and don't abuse the grace period. (That is the 10 or 15 seconds most PO's giver after the three minute allotted time.)

I also like extemp speaking. Now I don't mean you can't have any prep. I'm just saying, have good eye contact with everyone in the room. (Mainly just looking around the room. You're trying to convince everyone else in the room to join your side, not the judges.)

On the topic of decorum. Decorum is one of the largest parts of Congress. (Decorum is like general professionalism in the round.) Always make sure you are being professional in the round.

Congress Presiding Officer:

I typically rank the PO, but only for specific qualifications.

1. Make sure you are keeping up with Precedence and Recency, as well as call on the correct people so the round is fair for everyone.

2. Make sure your not being biased. I understand giving your friend or teammate a speech fast, but after precedence and recency has been set for both speeches and questioning. It should be based off of that.

3. Finally, making you sure you keep the round together and running smooth. If it's a rowdy house then I understand if you can't. But if you do manage to keep it all together, especially in a rowdy house. Kudos to you.

I generally judge congress and have more experience there but I have some expectations for how PF should go.

I'm open to speed though do believe PF is more of the Lay Man's debate and that your job is to be persuasive and understandable to all in the room I might not be able to catch everything in the round if you're going as fast as humanly possible and thus won't be able to flow everything said.

In arguments, I'm open to most anything BUT it must be explained very clearly so that there is zero confusion among anyone in the room. I believe that the second rebuttal needs to address both sides of the flow and that weighing should be done for me keeping with main points in summaries/ff

Do not paraphrase evidence. There shouldn't be any time you are saying anything claiming it is what the evidence says where it isn't. If you feel like you need to paraphrase explain the evidence more afterwards or be able to adapt your arguments to what the authors actually mean.

Speech:

Speak clearly, make your speech engaging, emotional speeches are disingenuous and overdone,

Debate:

NO SPEWING, no ad hominem attacks or strawmaning, nuclear annihilation is only valid if you can prove that it will destroy the planet,

I have been coaching speech and debate since 2000.

First of all, I believe that debate is a communication activity. Consequently, I will be looking for effective communication that includes effective eye contact, diction, inflection, projection, and gesturing.

Furthermore, I expect debaters to speak at a normal rate. If you spread, I will vote for your opponent. My reasoning:

• People do not spread in the real world.
• When you speak at a normal rate, you are forced to prioritize your arguments. Choosing arguments is part of the learning experience in debate.
• When people spread, their syntax frequently suffers.

Finally, I will not fill in the blanks for you. Even if I understand what you are trying to say, it is your job to say it effectively. Likewise, I expect debaters to clearly connect their evidence to the points they are trying to make. Be creative with your arguments, but it is your job to help me understand your arguments.

One last thing: I don't mind esoteric arguments, but I put a high value on practicality, especially when discussing real-world issues and policies. Sometimes, debate can seem disconnected from reality, and it shouldn't be.

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

I debated in the late 90's. I believe in the Value Premise and Criterion. I think there should be clash. Rounds should be in a conversational speed. If I am yelling clear, I am missing an argument. I will stop flowing. I am not a blank slate judge nor will I drop someone for dropping an unreasonable argument. The last speeches are for providing voters and writing my ballot. If there is no connection back to the VP/ your position, I feel there is no ground for me to vote. I do not vote for Kritiks. I do believe a discussion with a debater about the round is ok. I think understanding points of view helps with communicating your cases in later rounds. I will not switch my decision.