I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.

Ok with speed just be clear. Will put down my pen and stop flowing if you are going to fast.

Please be respectful during cross.

Hi! I'm Raja Archie (my preferred pronouns: she/her/hers)

My email is rrarchie98@gmail.com and I’d love to be added to the email chain

Full Disclosure: This judge is black, disabled, and queer (be mindful of what you say around her and in her rounds)

My rounds are a safe places. Which means you are required to respect preferred pronouns. I encourage you to ask before the round starts and if you don’t get the chance to ask before the round avoid the use of gendered language. Homophobia, discrimination, racism, xenophobia, ableism, transphobia, sexism, and all other awful prejudices in any form is not tolerated in my rounds and I won’t hesitate to vote you down and end the round early if an unsafe environment is created. Just be a nice human :)

My Background: Former Policy and Congressional debate coach for ETHS. Former NatCirc + local circuit congress (1yr) and policy debater (5yrs) for 4yrs at ETHS (c/o 2016). Judging since 2015 and have experience in judging Congress, Policy, and LD.

My Philosophy: I don’t believe in telling debaters how they should debate, or what arguments they should read. As a judge I just decide who did the better debating at the end of the round.

A note for Congressional Debaters: Remember it's Congressional Debate, key word 'debate' that's the one really important aspect that separates this type of debate from a speech event so please please please remember to debate, clash really is critical. Also, try not to obsessively rehash which can be avoided by remembering to review your flow and trying to refute line by line. Lastly, the speakers who stick out to me the most aren't just the ones who sound good or present well they're the ones who can structure a speech and debate well on top of those things.

Important FYI! Please refrain from using gendered language in session, especially if everyone hasn't gone around and introduced themselves along with their preferred pronouns. Fortunately in Congress everyone has a title of either 'Rep. [insert last name]' or 'Sen. [insert last name]' which makes avoiding gendered language like 'she'/'he'/'her'/'miss'/etc. even easier :)

For Policy Debaters

• Read arguments that YOU think are rad. Just do you. If you have a plan text that’s cool..but like also no plan text no problem because framework makes the game work. I'm not going to evaluate problematic or offensive arguments (i.e. ‘racism good’, ‘heteronormativity good’, ‘patriarchy good’, etc.) because that not only requires my brain power as a judge but also emotional labor that I won't be compensated for so just no. Note that problematic or offensive arguments does not mean problematic or offensive execution of an argument. Everyone is ignorant about some thing at some point and I am willing to educate if you’re willing to take an L, respectfully listen to what I have to say, and learn.

• Speaking - When it comes to speaking speed is not an issue I can flow by ear exceptionally well but clarity is a must especially if you want high speaker points from me

• Debaters love to ask me before round, ‘What types of arguments do you like judge?’ So to answer that simply, I like good arguments. What I'm not going to do is list which arguments I read as a debater because I don’t want you to read my paradigm then poorly execute an argument in front of me as a desperate attempt to secure a W. I do understand the importance of prefs though so full disclosure I’m probably not the preferred judge for you if your neg strat doesn’t contain a K

• No matter what types of arguments you read, if I’ve judged you in the past, if I’m cool with your school or coach, what types of teams I’ve coached, what kind of debater I was or what lit I’ve read..I won’t do any of the work for you. That means don’t debate lazily. That means even if it’s the 6th prelim round give it your all still. That means clear breakdowns of arguments (i.e. solid overviews, answering those direct CX questions about your argument’s content, etc.). That also means crystal clear breakdowns of how your side has won the debate within rebuttal speeches is a necessity.

Remember, education comes first always, be kind to one another, spread positive vibes among your fellow debaters, and good luck!

Kathleen Bogen

I am parent of a congressional debater at American Heritage in Boca/Delray Florida. I have judged local, regional and national tournaments. I judge primarily IE and Congressional Debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I like a good speaker and refutation is important. No spreading.
I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population?

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

I am a parent that did LD and policy debate in high school and loved it.

For Congressional Debate, my focus is on logic. The better I can understand your arguments, the more it clashes with arguments made by previous debaters, and the better you can explain why those should be the reason to vote for the position you're advocating, the better the score will be. For the question of content vs presentation I try to follow the 70-30 rule -- the focus is mainly on the content, but great presentation is appreciated.

In a round with a lot of great speakers and strong arguments and clash, I will tend to rank higher those that "raise the room" more. All things being equal, the tiebreaker for me will be those that are friendlier to others and have a more civil / respectful tone in their speeches and questioning.

I value well-supported, creative arguments - secondly clash and refutation. Knowledge of the topic is important, fluff is not. And at least you should sound like you really care.

Nancy Dean- Director of speech and debate at Western High School in south Florida. I have been the head coach for 19 years, main interest is Congress

Speak clearly, do NOT spread. I look for well thought out arguments, no canned speeches. There must be clash or there is no debate. I stop listening when there is one-sided debate.

I read the bills so make sure you are on point with your arguments, refute and extend. Rehash will not be cool. Where you get your sources is important to me.

The PO will most certainly be considered.

Do not be rude, but again, clash is important. Look and play the part of a representative/senator. You are not a kid in high school, be well polished. I'm good with NO handshakes. :)

While I enjoy judging a variety of events and encourage students to have fun with competing, I do take judging events very seriously. I have been coaching a small, yet quickly growing team for almost three years and have been a middle and high school judge for almost six years. I judge consistently on both the local and national circuits, including the TOC and NSDA championships.

I strive to remain objective regardless of personal opinions and have often ranked students debating on the side of an argument I may not agree with personally because they were the most convincing or were able to poke holes in the arguments presented on other sides. I believe that as a coach and a judge it is my job to provide detailed critiques and solid feedback to all students, even those I rank highly, to best serve the hardworking students competing at these tournaments.

in general, my paradigms include strong evidence to back up claims, well-constructed and organized speeches and assertive, yet not too aggressive questioning. I expect courteous, respectful behavior at all times, both in and out of sessions, and frown upon negative facial expressions, comments, hand gestures and the like.

Specifically regarding Public Forum debate, I want the participants to be able to show me why the team won the round and each speech after the first constructive should have clash. That said, I am not a fan of spreading and look for a combination of persuasion, argumentation and reasoning in each round.

Regarding delivery, I will not mark down for speaking quickly, as long as I am able to follow what is being said. I look for debaters who make eye contact and are not simply reading a well-written speech. While voice projection and inflection are in no way valued over content and argumentation, they do go a long way with impact and keeping the attention of listeners.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hi!I am a first-year PhD student at the University of Tennessee studying nuclear engineering and doing research at the Tennessee Ion Beam Materials Laboratory. I competed in parliamentary debate at the University of Illinois on the NPDA circuit and did congressional debate for three years at Hampshire High School in Hampshire, IL in ICDA, NSDA, and IHSA tournaments. At the University of Illinois, I was the president of the Illini Forensics speech and debate team, and helped coach parli and LD.

In terms of personal politics, I won’t let them influence my voting decisions or speaker scores that I give out. I’ll definitely push back against any dumb ideas in my feedback in ballots, but I’ll definitely try my hardest to not let that reflect in speaker scores or my RFD (of course no judge is perfect at this and they’re lying if they say they are). Only exception is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, any kind of -ist or -ic arguments will cause me to dock speaker points and will be a voting issue, but it should be addressed by the other team in their speeches if it comes up regardless.

Parliamentary:
1. No/minimal spreading. Without cards and without shared documents, it's incredibly hard to hear clearly. Online debate exacerbates this issue, as mic quality is terrible. I won't necessarily vote on spreading, but if you're speaking fast enough to where I can't understand you, I won't be able to completely flow your argument, so you'll appear to have dropped arguments on my flow.

2. Kritiks must be absolutely rock solid and grounded in reality for me to vote on them. I generally despise Ks, especially in parli, because they are almost always prepared ahead of time and just minorly adapted for the individual topic. If you do decide to run a K, make it understandable and realistic, don't start quoting obscure theory that is beyond a reasonable level of familiarity. THAT BEING SAID I try my best to vote on the flow, so if you run an annoying K but the other team doesn't respond properly, I'll have to vote for it but I won't be happy.

3. I will only vote on theory if there is proven abuse that is not sufficiently responded to by the other team. Big fan of RVIs, run them if the other team runs frivolous T.

4. I am much more concerned about the quality of arguments than I am about the technicality of your arguments. Better arguments = better communication.

5. Signpost please! Be clear when moving onto different advantages, disadvantages, counter plans, etc., and give a roadmap of your speech before you give it, you can do this off time if you like.

6. Have fun, don't get angry at each other. We all do debate for fun, no need to make it overly competitive.

Policy and LD

1. I’m fine with speed (to an extent). In policy you have cards and the arguments are usually predictable enough to follow along. The only time I dock speaker points for spreading is if I think your case or your own personal speaking style would be helped by slowing down. If you’re spreading so fast that I can’t understand your arguments, that’ll reflect on the flow not because I don’t like spreading but because I can’t flow arguments that aren’t clear.

2. Kritiks must be absolutely rock solid and grounded in reality for me to vote on them. Don’t run a K because you want to shoehorn your grand political ideology into every single debate you have. If you don’t prove that voting for the K has real world impacts and that it’s not just trying to fiat mindset, 99 times out of 100 it’s just cringe. Ground your Ks in a very tangible voting issue that I can feel good voting about. If you run it, also be aware that I will DEFINITELY vote for a T that attacks a silly K for making the debate non-educational. THAT BEING SAID I try my best to vote on the flow, so if you run an annoying K but the other team doesn't respond properly, I'll vote for it.

3. I will only vote on theory if there is proven abuse that is not sufficiently responded to by the other team. Running theory/topicality and the other team responding badly does not automatically mean you won the debate on theory/topicality if you haven’t proven that you’ve lost ground or the educational value of the debate. I love RVIs on pointless T.

4. Signpost, please. I am not a policy judge first and foremost, I’ve only ever competed in Parli on the college circuit, congress in high school, and a little IPDA, so please tell me where you are in your arguments because with spreading (which again is fine) and the different format, it’s very easy to get lost.

6. Cross-ex- I flow it, but please make sure to apply what you asked in cross-ex in your speeches. Respond to it in your speeches as if I didn’t flow it. Don’t just ask questions for the sake of asking questions, make them all intentional.

7. Have fun! If you take debate so seriously to the point where you actually get mad or tilted at an argument, that’s probably more on you than it is on the other team. We all do debate for fun.

If you have any questions for me before/after a round or want clarification on feedback, feel free to reach out to me at stevenfrankowski8@gmail.com, I’ll keep an eye on my email before rounds during prep for parli if you have any questions during prep and try to respond during prep.

Congress

1. Clash - This is a form of debate and I expect to hear a battle of ideas. This also indicates that you are listening.

2. No spreading - Congress is as much about clearly communicating ideas as it is about content.

3. Research - State your sources; I will judge based on research quality, both the source and date of the research cited are important. Along with this, youneed analysis on your research. Stating quotes or stats without any reason for why I should care will get you docked speaker points and speech score.

4. Content - Make sure when you give a speech that you are bringing in new arguments, if you get up and only restate other debaters' arguments you are missing the point of debate. As debate evolves, make sure you evolve with it. If the focus of the debate starts to center around one pivotal thing, make sure you bring that up. If you make a claim without a link or quote evidence without any analysis, I generally take that as if the evidence was not brought up at all. Link both to the bill and to other speakers' arguments.

5. Questioning - This is not a time to give a speech or preempt your speech. Point out flaws in logic, or clarify certain terms, but don't just ask them to restate their contentions.

Congressional Debate:

I should start off by saying that I am a judge who is a stickler about citing sources and having good scholarly facts. Learning how to properly research is important to debate and so is citing.

I am a judge that expects bills that are thoroughly researched and well written by those that have authorship and those that have sponsorship I believe that everyone should dress and act appropriately and treat each other with respect. There is no reason to shout or talk over one another and I expect the PO to maintain the order and the rules. I am a judge who doesn’t start the PO off at 1 in scoring because I need the PO to show me they are active in the room and not just staring at a clock or their phone. If I see a PO on their phone for any other reason then I will lower them farther. I expect lots of facts and I want to know exactly where those facts are from and I don’t believe Wikipedia is a scholarly article. I like to hear refutations and know that debaters are paying attention to each other. I don’t want to see a lot of rehash, I want to see movement of the bills if there is nothing new. As a judge, I don’t want to listen to five pros cause everyone wants to give their prepared speech. Be spontaneous and attentive to what is going on in the room. I like a spontaneous speech that is to something another student spoke on than a well prepared long drawn out speech that I knew was coming any day of the week. Have fun and be prepared to speak.

My Education:

Bachelors of Arts in Criminal Justice from Mount Mercy University

Associates of Arts in Paralegal Studies from Kirkwood Community College

Policy Debate

I am not interested in spreading! I can hang with some speed, but will GREATLY value impact crystallization and a touch of rhetorical flare.

I have NSDA VCX judging experience, and am a veteran coach/director, with over 15 years of experience and Congress was my primary debate event.

Would prefer not to have to judge the "K" but am down for whatever you decide...If I hear racism, discrimination, sexism, or even tacit xenophobic arguments of any sort I'll drop you immediately and take appropriate follow-up steps.

Congressional Debate

I competed in the NSDA during the 1999-2001 seasons and Congressional Debate was my primary national event. I value an actual "debate" of the legislation at hand, enthusiastic competitors who carry the debate forward in every facet of the round, and adept usage of parliamentary procedure. I ABSOLUTELY view Congress as a debate event and will base my acceptance of evidence predicated on appropriate citation provision. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross-examination sessions.

My email:

jgarrett@nhusd.k12.ca.us

My own debate background was Policy/CX and LD, but I have judged across all formats for the last several years, and recently mostly Congress. Content is king, but I expect to see the ability to persuade even in policy debates. Providing context and walking me through your logical arguments are crucial. And I give strong consideration to your performance in the cx/crossfire/questioning; your ability to ask and field questions in an assertive but civil manner is a critical aspect of the debate. CIVILITY MATTERS. Treat your opponent(s) with exactly the same respect that you would give me when speaking after the round.

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

Policy Debate:

Consider me a lay judge. If you spread as fast as you possible you can expect me to miss warrants, claims, or fully grasp the point of your argument. My apologies to the professionals.

I expect serious impact calculus and clear explanation of what you think the voting issues are, and will not do the heavy lifting for you in deciding if your argument is more valid or important than the opposing teams (see above point about being a lay judge...).

Kritiks - theoretically fine, but in practice, even four full speeches on your k will not be sufficient for me to fully understand the argument on the level you want and expect. However, if you feel able to explain to a troglodyte non-expert a little of the jargon and buzzword filled monstrosities of many K tags, go for it.

Speaker points - Be able to explain things in your own words without just regurgitating tags. Make good strategic decisions. Speak persuasively in rebuttals. Do well in CX both asking and answering. Do not be hyper-aggressive. Do be funny, if possible.

Congressional Debate:

I highly value clash (refutations), new arguments, and strong evidence and/or logical analytics from first principles. While speaking ability is important, Congress is firstly a debate event and only second a speech event - both are needed to be holistically successful.

I also suggest any experienced debater incorporate impact calculus, especially in later speeches.

I enjoy working with students who display great energy and persuasion during their presentation. Listed below are a few additional items I look for in a speaker.

· Effective opening statements with solid reasoning

· Arguments that are clear and easy to follow

· Good eye contact and stage presence

· Ability to move the debate further

· Being respectful and an active participant

I'm a parent judge and have been judging over the last 2 years. I have judged district level, regional and national level events. I judge both public forum and Congress.I will flow and am comfortable if you spread to an extent. Main considerations :

1. I don't mind if you sit or stand, I want you to be comfortable and enjoy the debate

2. I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, as long as other teams have no objections.

3. Tech over truth

4. I try to minimize intervening (unless necessary) and will not ask for evidences(even if you cite 'The Onion'). It is opposing teams job to do so.

5. You can assume that i have good understanding about the topic (not because i am super smart, but because my daughter debates :-)) but i try to be free of any prejudices about the topic and will let the opposing team verify any evidences.

6. Very important that you treat your opponents with respect! I dont mind people who are assertive or have voice modulation, but any kind of dis-respect towards opponents and it will likely affect your speak points and outcome.

•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

For Congressional Debate:

To judge the merits of evidence, I look to the links and warrants given to me. If there are competing links and warrants that are logically explained and also backed up by evidence, I consider the frameworks given to me. If there are competing frameworks and none are clearly superior, or if none are given, then I will weigh the frameworks and links myself. If only one acceptable framework is provided, even if there are significant holes, I will use that to judge the debate.

I also highly value impacting out evidence, and weighing them against each other. What I do not want to see is a complete defensive position where speakers refuse to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments and simply try to win by throwing back more/ "better" evidence. Admit when your opponents raise a valid concern, and feel free to attack them back by going for the links and other weak areas in their argumentation instead of just denying or ignoring their evidence. I value offensive arguments higher than defensive arguments.

I believe Congressional debate should also partly be judged on speaking, and so I will look for things like an intro, conclusion, and other stylistic elements that will help me rank speakers higher against their peers with comparable quality of argumentation.

References to how awesome the blue devils are and how terrible UNC is will get a clap.

Be a kind competitor.

I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.

Other than that, I think I'm a fairly standard judge. Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate.

In LD: Your framework is meant to be the standard by which we evaluate the resolution. As such, I believe it's vitally important. Please don't leave framework off in it's own world at the top of the flow. It should be clearly linked to each of your contentions and you should be impacting through your framework. Please make those links and impacts explicit. Don't leave me to infer them. You can win the debate without winning framework, provided that you successfully prove you better uphold your opponents' framework. I enjoy hearing the philosophy so I love when students take interesting case positions that fully incorporate neat frameworks. I'm okay with a quick-ish speed assuming you are articulating things in a clear way, but I'm not a fan of spreading for spreading's sake. It's worth saying the best debaters I've seen have never been the fastest. Fast often leads to inefficient and imprecise use of language and causes me to think more to process what you've said. In general, the more processing I have to do on my own, the worse for you.

In PF: Please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.

Congress: I expect congressional debate to be reactive to what has already happened in the chamber. Except for 1st pro, I expect that all speeches contain at least one refutation at an absolute minimum. A real refutation needs to interact with what was actually said. MadLibs style refutations where you name drop another debater in a way that was clearly just a fill in the blank without engaging with or responding to them is not going to get you a good score. Extensions are encouraged, but making the same point as if it's the first time it's come up in the chamber will not get you a good score.

Please also explain all the mechanics of how and why in your speech. Clearly articulated hows, whys, and impacts, along with responsive debate, are the keys to a high score. Also make sure links to the bill are made clear. I care a lot about how clean the internals of your contentions are in their organization. Tell me a story and inspire me. Please move the debate forward and cover new ground. No one enjoys listening to rehash. Clean presentation that inspires, quality questioning, and being a kind competitor are all valued.

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

In a virtual setting, I really depend on having a preview or roadmap as part of your speech. Without that, I find the structure of your speech very difficult to follow.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it. Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side.

All forms: Don't be afraid to be passionate or to be yourself. You've worked hard to prepare for the tournament and you deserve to be here. If you've put in the work, you've earned the right to be confident. Be proud of yourself and have some fun :)

I am looking forward to the upcoming tournament. When judging, I will particularly pay attention to number of refutations (the essence of DEBATE!), smooth and passionate delivery, content originality, clarity with responses to questions and last but not the least, the decorum (professionalism with fellow congressmen!).

I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated. 

I did Congress for four years at Dreyfoos School of the Arts in South Florida (C/O 2018), was good at it, and I now study linguistics and political science at the University of Florida and coach/judge (often) for Bronx Science in NYC.

I love POs and am looking for a reason to rank the PO high. If you mess up recency/precedence once it's not going to kill you, but if it's a consistent issue, or you mess up parliamentary procedure, you'll fall pretty quickly down my ballot.

Don't be cocky or rude (poking fun and jokes are totally cool and make things interesting). Make good arguments; if you don't have an impact, which means explaining the effect of the legislation and why it's good/bad, it doesn't count, no matter how pretty you sound. Just as importantly, you need to care about what you're saying. Finally, there needs to be some sort of clear speech structure. I'm totally cool with, and actually a fan of, speeches with alternative structures from the typical speech with two points, but you need to make that structure clear through signposting.

The most common feedback I give is about evidence. Remember, your job is to prove why a certain piece of legislation will do good or bad things for the world, so you not only need credible, relevant, and (ideally) recent data, but that data MUST be comprised of fact. Facts, as opposed to opinions, are a qualitative or quantitative assessment of either an ongoing process or something that happened. Facts may include numbers and statistics found in research, descriptions of an event or system/process, statements made by relevant government officials or organization leaders, existing/former laws or court decisions, etc. Facts are not unquantified descriptions of a numeric value; for example, statements saying something saw a "substantial increase" or was "significantly harmed" are relative and not factual. Those statements are an analysis of data rather than the data itself. If your whole speech is based on expert opinions and non-factual statements, I am left with no metric to actually weigh the importance of your impacts against those of other speakers.

Speaking well matters on my ballot, but only to the point that your presentation isn't distracting. I weigh speaking this way because a lot of metrics we traditionally use to assess speaking are pretty ableist and/or difficult for students for whom English isn't their first language or who use non-"standard" dialects.

If you say something blatantly problematic or harmful to any marginalized community, purposefully misgender someone (or continuously call them Mr./Ms. after being asked to not do so), or, as PO, clearly show bias toward any one group of people (that includes geographic prioritization, or prioritization of people from your school/district), you will be dropped.

also PLEASE refute oml

Seeing as these tournaments are for the purpose of debate, I first and foremost look for refutations that have been thoughtfully and intentionally woven into the line of reasoning. I want see that debaters have been paying attention to their counterparts and using others' arguments to further their own.

Additionally, I look for:

-Purposeful questions that indicate attentiveness to debate
-Being able to respectfully defend one's opinion
-Advocating for the overall success of the chamber (ie being mindful of recesses vs getting in speeches for others)
-Having an overall good attitude
-Respectful and purposeful humor
-Evident knowledge and logic
-Enjoying debate even in the competitive environment

Regarding my background, I have served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and have served in U.S. Embassies across the globe as well as in Washington, DC and at the United Nations. Prior to that, I initially began my career working on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs in corporate finance. I transitioned to consulting on international finance for Price Waterhouse, and then left to begin a career in government working for the CIA. All that to say, my background is heavy on foreign policy, economics, and finance. I have judged speech and debate for the past 15 years but most actively in the last 5 years. I have judged every speech and debate event on both the local and national circuits. Congress has become one of my favorite events to judge because almost every round there is an issue that I can relate to from real world experience and it is truly a joy to watch students delve into significant and strategic issues.

I tend to spend more time listening and evaluating your arguments than I do writing feedback, though I aim to give constructive comments. In general, I look for strong evidence to back up arguments and well constructed and articulated speeches. Coming from a diplomatic background, I like a courteous debate, although I appreciate, when appropriate, the need to be assertive and forward leaning in defending a position.

I am very objective when it comes to the issues. However, I will mark down for a speech that does not stand up in the status quo. While content and argumentation are at the forefront of my judging criteria, I do appreciate fluidity and strength in delivery. I frown on rehash and grandstanding. Speeches should also demonstrate strong impact. Questions should be relevant and purposeful. Lastly, I especially enjoy judging rounds where students are listening and creating good clash. Have fun and make it a true debate!

Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language.

General: Please respect me by not using graphic descriptions of violence or abuse in your argumentation - if you have a question about this I’m willing to talk to you before round. I will not vote for what I feel are morally repugnant arguments like “racism good,” “torture good,” or “death good.” Do not take me or my ballot hostage. Do not argue for a double loss or a double win.

Speed: I’d prefer you go slowly. Fewer cards often means more skill in argumentation.

LD and PF
I approach LD and PF rounds through the lens of policy debate. So LD or PF specific jargon, abbreviations, and tricks likely will not resonate with me. I want clear impacts and impact analysis. I do not like paraphrasing and I want clash. Lots of clash. I feel like at the end of a lot of rounds I've not be told how to weigh the two teams' impacts. So lots of clash is only good with lots of impact weighing. In LD, I generally do not know or understand your kritiks. So take the time to explain to me how your kritik interacts with your opponent’s case.

Policy Debate
I think policy debate is about whether or not the aff's plan/advocacy should happen.

Kritiks : I think that Affs should have a written advocacy statement, but they do not necessarily have to advocate for the USFG. I prefer the policy making framework, but do have an appreciation for performance debate. Despite working for the NSDA, I think there are a lot of problems with debate as an activity/community. If you choose to kritik the institution of competitive debate, I appreciate arguments that are solutions-oriented.

Theory+ Topicality : I was a 2A so I have a residual aff bias when it comes to theory. For me to vote on T it must be proven that the aff’s interpretation is flawed and that abuse has happened in round. I have a hard time weighing different standards for theory and T - you need to do that work for me on the negative, if you don’t I will likely presume aff on T.

My Background
I work at the National Speech & Debate Association as the Leadership and Education Specialist. I have a theatre teaching degree, a master's in performance studies, and a master's degree in teaching English Language Learners. I am married to my former college teammate, Chase McCool, but we don't always agree on debate-things, so don't assume!

Some background on myself - My experience in debate historically has been with congressional debate. However, I have coached PF before and have familiarity with the structure and find it to be a particularly exciting style of debate to watch and judge!

PUBLIC FORUM

There is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

Please speak so that the average listener can understand you. That does not mean you have to speak slowly. You just need to be clear. Slowing down to emphasize clear points/sub-points is always a good idea throughout your speech. 

I flow. I attempt to be non-interventionist. I will likely only call a card if the interpretation of that card is at significant dispute during the round. I advise debaters to read their cards carefully - many times, a debate can be lost because a team inaccurately cites evidence that is crucial to their argument. Including the year and source for evidence is necessary for me to accept them as credible.  

Having a framework is always helpful. By the end of the constructive speeches, I do not want to hear any new arguments raised. Impacts need to logically flow from the warrants. Do not exaggerate them. 

It is important to try and rebut all arguments, but prioritize the most crucial ones. A weak argument that is dropped is less likely to be a convincing voting issue than a strong argument that went dropped. However, do not spend too much time on a single argument if your opponent mentioned multiple other ones. Also, try to extend your arguments and do some basic weighing here as well, but do not do so at the expense of rebuttal.

As the debate progresses, it crucial that you weigh and summarize the main voting issues, or reasons that I should vote for or against a particular side. In the summary speech, convince me why you won or your opponent lost the round. If an argument is not weighed by either side, I will not consider it. The summary speech is not for new arguments.

A final focus should not include any argument not referenced in the summary speech. I do not flow the final focus - I just listen. Normally, that speech can make or break a close round.

In crossfire, I listen and you can persuade me. However, crossfire is not flowed, so you need to incorporate any findings from crossfire into your speeches for me to consider it. It is more likely that you can exploit flaws in an opponent's argument during crossfire than it is likely for you to advance your own argument. That is true for your opponent as well. Therefore, it would likely be unnecessary to incorporate entirely new cards into your cross questions/responses. Do not interrupt one another or engage in a screaming match. Again, there is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have developed a rubric that clearly outlines my paradigm for judging Congressional Debate. Granted, not all speeches or rounds can be categorized the same. Consider this paradigm, therefore, a general, albeit not perfect, guide for how I approach Congressional Debate rounds when judging:

Speakers will be considerably penalized for speaking on less bills than they should given the allotted time of the session. Usually sessions allow for two speeches. Depending on size and time this could differ.

If a speaker intended to speak on the bills but was unable to due to poor recency, they will NOT be penalized under this system.

----NOTE: If the chamber comes to a base-x bill agreement, I frown upon those who agree to it before the debate starts, and then proceed to abuse it. This activity was not intended to encourage deceptive legislative tactics. Such an action is not, however, against the formal NSDA rules. Thus, I will hear the speech with no penalty, but may deduct Parliamentary Points for poor legislative practice.

NOTE ABOUT RUBRIC – failure to execute criterion effectively counts as having not done it at all

e.g. – an impact that does not make sense based on the argument provided is as good as a failure to provide an impact

TOC-SPECIFIC NOTE – all morning session speeches on local issues will be treated in my system as authorships.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 –

AUTHORSHIP - the speaker focuses their speech on introducing the Congress to a specific serious problem and its impacts, and explains how their bill effectively solves that problem…the speaker discusses the entire scope of the bill accurately…the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the negation must refute effectively in order to win the debate

1STNEG - the speaker focuses the speech on how Congress could make a specific problem worse, not solve the problem at all or create other net harms not related to the problems (ideally, this should refer to the authorship speech) … the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is specific and compelling… the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the affirmation must refute in order to win the debate, as they have muddied the foundation of debate set by the authorship

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence, logic and, most importantly, new impacts that strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) …they should be able to clearly explain how their information made the claim stronger or establish new/stronger impacts about that claim

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and clearly explaining why a particular side won without adding new points…the speaker explains what voting issues the congressional representatives should consider in their vote, and why based on those issues and the information presented in the debate, their side wins…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

6 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker effectively explains the net benefits of the legislation…the speaker discusses the most important portions of the bill accurately, but alludes to the bill rather than referring to specific sections… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker focuses the speech on the bad elements of the bill, but fails to weigh those impacts against those in the authorship effectively…the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is general and accurate… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses some of the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context...the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

(5 – the speaker refutes to one strong argument in the debate and effectively refutes it, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context)

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … they should have at least few strong impacts, even if they are not completely different but should be explained more effectively/clearly than prior speakers

(5 – all of the criteria above, but lacks strong impacts)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and explains why a particular side won the debate …the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

4 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to the net benefits of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker talks about the bill generally, rather than what the specific legislation does… the speaker provides no strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker refers to the net harms of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker refers to what bills similar to the one in question do, rather than what it does specifically… the speaker provides no strong impacts

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses some of the arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker provides no strong impacts

(3 – the speaker refers to the strongest arguments in the debate and attempts to refute them, but fails to do so effectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…a speaker earning this score may give strong refutation points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

EXTENSION – the speaker tries to expand upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … no strong impacts are given and the speaker fails to explain how their new information strengthen the debate

(3 – the speaker provides new evidence and logic but it fails to truly enhance the debate, or is only tangentially related to the claims of the speakers being referenced…a speaker may give a strong extension speech…a speaker earning this score may give strong extension points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker attempts to weigh the debate, and while they may be able to explain compelling net benefits or harms brought up by their side, they fail to effectively

2 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to an unclear problem OR the solutions of the speaker weakly works towards solving a problem… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

1STNEG – the speaker refers to unclear net harms OR does not sufficiently explain how it makes the problem worse… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses the weaker arguments or just tries to debate the rhetoric that came up on the opposing side of debate and does so ineffectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context

(1 – rehash of other speakers’ refutation arguments without providing new logic/impacts that change the debate)

EXPANSION – the speaker primarily rehashes old arguments, but there are moments of the speech in which they successfully add some new interesting evidence, logic or impacts to the debate, but not enough to constitute a successful expansion speech…

(1 – the speaker rehashes, rather than expands, old arguments…they add no new information to the debate)

DELIVERY

8 - the speaker demands the attention of the room through using effective eye contact and vocal variation...the speech is clear and delivered with compelling and demanding authority/confidence

6 - the speaker speaks clearly and makes sufficient eye contact with the audience

4 - the speaker makes poor eye contact with the audience but doesn’t look at their pad excessively ...the speaker uses no vocal variety, is purely monotone

2 - the speaker looks at their pad a bit too much...the speaker’s rate of speech at times is difficult to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that it disrupts the flow of their speech at times
1 - the speaker only looks at the pad...the speakers rate of speech is impossible to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that the flow of the speech is nonexistent (if a speaker receives this score, they can never rank in a room - this score reflects an inability on my part to understand the speaker

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC
8 - the speaker uses logic to support their claims that is clear, compelling, well organized and most importantly valid...the reasoning considerably sways the debate to strengthen the side of the speaker...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

6 - the speaker used logic to support their claims that is mostly valid...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

4 - the speaker indirectly connects all claims with prerequisite evidence or strands of logic that support it, even if they fail to connect them clearly...all claims requiring additional support have some evidence defending them, but possibly not enough to really support the claim

2 - the speaker makes considerable logical flaws in defending their claims...the speaker fails to use evidence to defend their claims that require support
1 - the speaker provides no component of logic that adds to the debate in a way that is compelling

ORGANIZATION
8 - the speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech, body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate), and a conclusion that cleverly ties into the intro...the transitions are natural, allow the speech to make sense as a cohesive whole and each element of the speech works in combination with each other

6 - he speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech and a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has clear, albeit boring, transitions between the various aspects of their speech

4 - a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has boring and at times unclear transitions between the various aspects of their speech

2 - the speaker presents a speech that is all over the place and difficult to follow...the speaker presents two arguments in their body but the organization of the logic makes it tough to follow their argument...the speaker lacks transitions between the various aspects of their speech causing the speech to lack cohesion

[NOTE – three points will be deducted from this category for speeches that go less than 15 seconds before the speech’s time limit or more than 10 seconds over the time limit…e.g. standard 3:00 speeches should be between 2:45-3:10]

ANSWERING QUESTIONS
4 - the speaker answers questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them
2 - the speaker answers at least half of their questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them for at least half of the questions
0 - the speaker answers no questions with clarity and confidence...the questioners successfully point out major holes in the arguments of the speaker

Presiding Officers will be addressed on a similar scale based on different criteria…this ensures they can be ranked as high as any speaker in the room – PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (the explanation, knowledge and effective execution of parliamentary procedures); RECOGNITION (fair and efficient in recognizing speakers – follows speaker precedence and recency and avoids implicit/explicit bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.); CONTROL (leads in difficult situations, maintains decorum of delegates in chamber, uses good judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency); COMMUNICATION (explains rulings concisely and clearly); DECORUM (maintains a respectful precense in the room – this is only ranked on the scale of 0-4, but, as is the case for speakers, exceptionally bad decorum will result in reduction of Parliamentary Points)

To assess the abilities of competitors of legislators I have a category in my system called Parliamentary Points. These are usually 0-1 points that I either add or detract at a time based on how well legislators participate in the chamber outside of their designated speaking time through solving problems in the chamber, raising motions and asking questions.

I am a parent and first-time Congress judge. As a former lawyer and teacher and I am looking forward to watching students craft clear, evidence-based, well organized speeches, as well as engaged questioning and responses. I also appreciate students who are passionate and are having fun!

Jonathan Peele
Director of Speech & Debate
Charlotte Latin School

Updated: January, 26, 2020

Public Forum Debate Paradigm
Emory 2020 update: I will drop you with haste if you run theory in front of me.

TL;DR - Explicitly weigh and you can go kinda fast.

If you don't do it I'll try to vote on the arguments allocated the most time in the round, but I reserve the right to decide what's most important all on my own in the absence of arguments about which ones truly are. I'm a moderate on speed; doesn't have to be conversational, but my flowing definitely gets weak at top speed. If you won't think me an idiot for admitting what is true of every judge, my processing of a few, well developed arguments will be better than many underdeveloped ones.

Random thoughts on the state of the art:
- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but I definitely think that's best practice.
- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.
- I won't charge either team prep when cards are called for, but your prep time does begin once you're handed the evidence. Hand your opponent your device with the exact content they asked for displayed.
- Paraphrasing isn't the devil, but be ethical. It's essential you have the underlying text readily available (per the rules, ya know).
- I think case disclosure is ok. I distrust that this is really about enhancing education and suspect it's more often about enabling a school's war room to prep everyone out. Please don't read me disclosure theory in PF.
- I'd rather not shake your hand. It's just too much.

Public Forum lives in limbo between its Policy and Lincoln-Douglas counterparts. Frankly, one of the great things about being involved in the event right now is the lack of choking orthodoxy (which paradoxically really only tries to be as unorthodox as possible) to which our cousins in CX and LD have subjected themselves. (What a fun sentence!) Directly charged with neither the task of advocating a plan to execute a policy nor with advocating a particular value structure, as an emerging community we are only just now figuring out how to articulate what exactly debaters are supposed to be doing in Public Forum rounds. I certainly do not have the definitive answer to that question, but my best description of the event is that it is meant to be a policy-rationale debate. Public Forum debate at its best calls for a momentary suspension of the considerations of exactly how (i.e., a plan) to execute a policy and instead debating the rationale for changing/not changing the status quo. Allow me to qualify: I am not suggesting that Public Forum should systematically exclude all consideration of how policy would be executed (occasional assumptions about how the policy would unfold in the context of today’s America have a place in-round), but rather I am attempting to define appropriate parameters for Public Forum. If you've made it this far, you might also find some thoughts in my LD paradigm useful.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm
I have remarkably low-self esteem as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate critic. I think I’m a good coach and possess somewhat above-average intelligence, but the gobbledygook that passes for “debate” in most circuit LD rounds I’ve seen is either A) so complicated and over my head that I should rethink those assumptions about myself or B) such a poor excuse for an intellectually honest discussion of the resolution that I’m glad to be an outsider in your realm. If I’m in the pool at a meaningful LD tournament it means that I’m doing a coaching friend a favor, failed to successfully hire out my commitment, or a terrible mistake of some kind has been made. I will almost certainly look miserable at the back of the room. Because I am.

As terribly negative as that sounds, I do on occasion find Lincoln-Douglas debates to be fulfilling and invigorating. What is it that can make me happy? Well, I suppose that’s what you’d like for me to attempt to articulate here. So here I go.

Speed – This is usually the only thing you ask about before you start debating. I do not believe that rate of delivery must be conversational and I will try to keep up with you. My pen can reasonably keep up, but since I don’t coach LD at a circuit-level full-time, and since I haven’t read the theory/critical literature that you want to throw at me at 500 words per minute, I’m probably not going to be very successful in evaluating it at the end of the round if you do go circuit-fast. You’ll see the frustration on my face if you ever look up. I can only vote on what I was able to process.

Framework – I do need you to articulate some weighing mechanism or decision-making calculus before you hit me with your case. I don’t care what you call it or what form it takes, but it does need to be clear, and the less variables you put into it the more comprehensible my decision will be at the end of the round. I tend to prefer specificity in criteria. If you never address this then what choice do I have but to arbitrarily decide? By that I mean don’t just put some nebulous, overly broad value at the top of your case and then never reference it. That’s just some vestigial relic from the way things were in LD 20 years ago. Then you’ll need to win why it’s preferable to use your weighing mechanism. Then just evaluate the arguments in the round (that’s “link back” I think in your vernacular) by that standard. If you do these things well and in a manner I can understand, you’re going to win.

Theory – I have opinions about what debate ought to be. You have opinions about what debate ought to be. Everyone has opinions about what debate ought to be. They differ wildly. I suppose then that I’m obligated to evaluating your arguments about how this activity should take place and to being open-minded about what best practices really are. But like everyone else, I have my personal biases and preferences and it’s going to be difficult to dislodge me from them. I prefer straightforward debate with comparison of the impacts in a world for which the resolution is or is not true. Now, you’re going to read that and think that I’m some sort of horrible “Truth seeker” judge. No. I just want to hear a debate of the resolution itself, not an advocacy primarily about what the educational value of debate is, some tenuous application of fringe academic theories, or some significant variation on the resolution that you wish to debate instead. That means I’m highly likely to accept some very simple topicality analysis as an answer when your opponent does any of these things. I like the way Joe Vaughan put it many years ago in an old version of his paradigm (I liked it so much I saved it), “I am open to a variety of different types of argumentation (kritiks, counterplans, et cetera), but only if such positions are linked specifically to a reasonable interpretation of the topic and are not an attempt to fundamentally change the focus of the issues intended by the framing of the resolution. Arguments that are only tangential to the conflict embedded in the resolution and shift the focus of the round to the validity of alternative philosophies are difficult for me to accept if challenged sufficiently.”

Disclaimer – While I deeply value winning as a worthwhile goal of debate, I am still also responsible for being a (albeit flawed) role model and an educator. If you are so profoundly rude or callous towards your opponent, or anyone in the community at any time for that matter, I reserve the right to drop you for that. I don’t have to accept all possible behaviors just because this is a game where we play with ideas.

Policy Debate Paradigm
I know the names of all the stock issues. I am a native speaker of English. I promise to try my best to be attentive and fair. Those are the only possible qualifications I have to be sitting in the back of your room (at least at any tournament important enough for you to be checking here for a paradigm). Go complain to the tab room immediately. I already tried and they didn't listen to me.

Past School Affiliations
Director of Forensics, Charlotte Latin School 2013-present
Director of Congressional Debate & Individual Events, The Harker School, San Jose, CA, 2009-2013
Director of Forensics, Manchester Essex Regional HS, Manchester, MA, 2007-2009
Director of Forensics, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2002-2007
Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, East Chapel Hill HS, Chapel Hill, NC, 2000-2002
Student (Primary Event: Congressional Debate), South View HS, Hope Mills, NC, 1996-2000

Camp Affiliations
Co-Founder & Co-Director, The Institute for Speech and Debate, Boulder, CO, Charlotte, NC & Fort Lauderdale, FL 2013-present
Director, Congressional Debate & Individual Events, University of California National Forensics Institute, Berkeley, CA 2012-2013
Director, Public Forum Debate, Capitol Debate Institute, Baltimore, MD 2011-2012
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, Harvard Debate Institute, Boston MA 2010
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Boston, MA, 2008-2009
Instructor, Public Forum Debate, National Debate Forum, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009
Director, Public Forum Debate, University of Kentucky National Debate Institute, Lexington, KY, 2008
Director, Public Forum Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007
Instructor, Congressional Debate, Florida Forensic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2006
Director, Congressional Debate, Research Triangle Forensics Institute, Cary, NC, 2003-2005

Don't spread.

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

---

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "write that down").
• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.
• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.
• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

---

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

Wendy Rubas, (@hlawtech)

I've been a practicing attorney for 20+ years and have judged several competitions of Congressional Debate. I am always so impressed with all of you, and it is pleasure and privilege to judge these competitions! Every round is different, but over time, I've learned what makes a great debater.

- Preparation. Your preparation is more obvious than you realize. Good preparation affords you the ability to be nimble, to pivot, to respond to the room. Only through research and preparation can you get to the level of understanding to be able to respond to the room and deepen the debate.

- Evidence. Now more than ever before, it is important to base your positions on credible evidence and to tell the judges your source. It is always preferable to use a primary sources (law, regulation, or administrative manual) than an article in Business Insider. In addition, it is powerful to hear how various proposals worked in the real world examples (as in "see they tried it and it worked ").

- Style. Being persuasive counts even in real life. Don't be afraid of a well placed pause. A little flair - some drama. Your tone and pacing can be useful to judges - to help them catch up. Read the room. Judges see a lot of things happening - how people are responding to you. If you aren't looking up- you will miss this.

- Stay present. It is easy to get distracted during a round and this is more true now in the online competitions. One thing to know, judges can tell when you are not paying attention. Stay present in the room, use the Q/A section - pay attention to others.

Good luck to you!

Congress: After authorship or sponsorship, I appreciate extemporaneous speech development that responds to the flow of debate. I look for refutation that extends debate, rather than repeats previous speakers. New evidence and perspective added to debate will be favored more than having a "flawless" presentation. Arguments should be well developed, and have a logical progression and relevant evidence. Being critical of previous arguments is crucial, but needs to be done without sacrificing decorum. Arguments should be well developed, and have a logical progression and relevant evidence. Don't rely on your evidence to make your claim for you - I expect you to be able to explain how your evidence supports the argument that you make.

PO uses parlipro to encourage debate, rather than as a weapon.

I competed for 4 years in Congress for Newton South HS in Newton, MA, graduating in 2018. I also competed in Extemp, Public Forum, and World Schools at different times.

Worlds Schools Paradigm (Specific to 2020 Nationals)

I only competed in Worlds a couple times, and I mostly forget what it's like. I have far more experience with Parli, particularly APDA format, and I'm probably going to judge the rounds similar to how I judge APDA. This means that I am going to flow the round, decide who wins, and figure out speaker points accordingly after.

Worlds is supposed to be about "big ideas," while other forms of debate are about "winning on the flow." The judge guide tells me that it's okay for me to not "vote on arguments [I] think are poorly explained/justified or wildly implausible even if the other team doesn’t explicitly respond to them."

I remember a lot of frustration with judge inconsistency when I competed at 2018 Nationals, so I want to try to be somewhat clear how I view the WSD method of judging not directly off the flow. I will try my best to vote off of "big ideas" as opposed to dropped minor arguments, but it would take an extreme circumstance for me to intervene in the round and reject a main argument. For example, I will not heavily weigh an argument because Opp didn't respond to 1 Prop warrant in the opening speech that was dropped throughout the round, if Opp adequately engaged with the argument holistically. That being said, I can't imagine a (not offensive) contention that I would drop off the flow if a team was winning it, because I thought it was poorly warranted/explained/justified.

Things you SHOULD do in WSD:

--Above all else: WEIGH in the 4th speech (and throughout the round). Highly unlikely that I would vote off any argument not clearly weighed in the 4th speech. I am a pragmatic leaning guy - you want me to vote off of a principle argument, you need to explain and weigh it well in the context of the round.

--Signposting: tell me where to flow things.

--Extending major arguments through the round. Any constructive argument that you want me to vote off of to be substantively discussed (and weighed) in all 3 speeches (or 2nd and 3rd if you introduce it in the second speech). If the other team totally drops your argument just mention it again and you can weigh it. What I will NOT vote off of is if you go for two random bad warrants from your first speech that no one addresses throughout the round (because this is worlds, not parli).

--Model: Gov should give me a clear model that's both reasonable and strategic, and include clear burdens, and should be prepared to defend their model; Opp should contest the model if need be.

Things you should NOT to do in WSD:

--Off time road maps. If it's so important, use your time for it.

--Do not try to distract the other team's speaker by rising for a million POIs. I remember this from when I competed and it sucked. Also, I probably won't flow your POI, only the response from the speaker to it, so if you bring something up in a POI you need to mention it in your speech. Also there is no need for you use a POI to just remind me of the main argument in your speech because I flowed it.

--Don't be a terrible person: racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

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

Congress Paradigm

I'm looking for legislators who will advance debate. This means (generally in order of importance):

ABOVE ALL ELSE:

--Know your place in the round! Early speeches should focus on constructive arguments, mid-round speeches should focus on refutation and extending arguments, and late round speeches should crystalize and weigh the debate. Do not give me a 2 point constructive in the 8th cycle. Even though I ask for clash below, don’t be afraid of speaking early - I expect less clash and I understand the important role you’re playing in the debate. This is very important and something I've found the majority of competitors are not doing in prelims at nationals. If you don't reference other speakers' arguments in the 3th cycle or later, you are almost certainly not going to be ranked.

EVERYTHING ELSE IMPORTANT:

--Clash! Starting with the first negative, every speech should be refuting and building off of previous speeches. If you don't reference other speakers sometime after the third cycle, you will almost certainly not be ranked. It's not enough to contradict someone, say their name, and then say you're right. I need you to briefly explain the aspect of the argument, and then explain why it's wrong (actually clash).

-- Interpret the bill correctly: Way too many kids debate the bill based on the title, not the text of the bill (which is written incorrectly by the author), or misconstrue the bill to make it easier to debate. Often times everyone in the room accepts the misreading because it makes the debate easier. Don't do this! If you think people are reading the bill incorrectly, point this out! I'm talking blatant mischaracterizations - obviously, there are some cases where the bill is vague and you can and should make arguments as to why your interpretation is correct.

--Clear Warrants! You need to explain the link chain behind your evidence/argument and why it's true. This advances debate because it makes it easier for other legislators to engage with your arguments, which helps you. The best debaters can simplify complex arguments and explain them powerfully, clearly, and concisely.

--Impacts! Be detailed. Explain to me how the U.S. will be better if we vote on your side of the debate. Ideally quantified (dependent on bill topic). Over the top rhetoric is wasting your time, not a substitute for logic and evidence.

--Evidence! Your evidence should actually support your argument, not tangentially related prep from a bill you debated last year.

Other Things:

--Speaking Speed:

For normal in person, I'm fine with very fast speaking, provided that: 1) You enunciate well and are understandable. 2) Speed isn't your way of getting around having bad word economy. 3) You don't start yelling whenever you speed up. On Zoom, speak slowly.

--Sponsorships: I rank sponsorships very highly if they're actually a sponsorship style speech (ie. background information to introduce bill, explain problem, how bill solves, impacts), and I'll have lower expectations if no one wants to give it. I will not rank a typical affirmative constructive highly even if no one else volunteered to give it.

--Presiding: I presided a lot during my career — I'll rank you very very highly if you do a good job but I also know when you mess up.

--Ask Questions! Not gonna lie I'm usually focusing on writing speech feedback during questioning, so with indirect questioning, I care more about how the speaker answers than how you questioner asks, but I'll notice over time who is asking good questions and staying engaged.

--Decorum: Call out the PO if they mess up, but be nice about it. The PO is doing his/her best and I likely already noticed the error. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. comments to legislators or arguments in round will not be tolerated.

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

PF Paradigm

Assume that I am up to date on widely-covered current events, but know nothing specific about the resolution.

Evidence isn't enough - explain it and give clear warrants. I'd rather a lot of good logical warranting than a card you don't explain well.

I don't care if you respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal or if you do it in summary - just whenever you do it, signpost it clearly.

WEIGH!! - Summary and focus need weighing. Write my RFD. If no one weighs I will be very unhappy. Good weighing wins rounds and bad weighing usually beats no weighing.

Speed - fine with however fast you want as long as you enunciate and signpost.

Cross examination - don't be afraid to (politely) cut your opponent off if they're clearly spewing bs or trying to waste time, I will know they are too and be cool with it. Grand cross, don't speak over your partner.

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

As a former congressional debater, I look for a blend of substance and style. Students should give well-developed, logical arguments that use credible evidence to support argumentative claims. Delivery is also important - students should speak in a way that is charismatic and engaging. Refutation and extension is crucial. Students should clash with previous speakers or build upon the arguments of others. This is debate, not speech!

Last Updated: Winter 2021

Assistant Debate Coach for 10 years, 8 of those at Olathe Northwest

Debated at Olathe South – didn’t debate in college

Feel free to e-mail me at jskoglundonw@olatheschools.org with any additional questions!

Overall: I default policymaker and typically prefer debates in that style. Impact work is the way to win my ballot. In general, I believe that the affirmative should provide a resolution-based advocacy, and the negative should support whatever is advocated in the 2NR. Tech>truth, but obviously there’s a line there somewhere. Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. are unacceptable.

Speed: I can generally keep up with you as long as you slow down for tags / cites / theory (or other things where you want me to flow every word) and give me time between transition points. I’ll give you one “clear” before I stop flowing.

Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll accept reasonability if it’s uncontested. For me, most T debates come down to the standards. Reading your “Limits Good” block against their “Limits Bad” block does nothing for me if you don’t actually engage in the debate happening with specificity.

General Theory: I don’t perceive myself to lean Aff or Neg on most theory arguments. Similarly to T, a good theory debate will include work on the standards that is not just embedded clash. If you feel that a theory arg is a reason to reject the team, I need more work than just literally that on my flow.

Framework: I prefer to flow framework on a separate sheet of paper as I want clear explanations / clash for why your framework is better than the other team’s.

Disadvantages / Impact Turns: I’ll listen to any DA, specific or not, though clearly a more specific link story will increase the probability of your argument. I will also listen to any impact scenario and will vote on terminal impacts. DAs / impact turns are generally strategic arguments to run in front of me as your judge.

Counterplans: If you don’t have a CP+DA combo in the 1NC, you’re probably making a strategic mistake in front of me as your judge. I’ll listen to any CP, but I like Advantage CPs in particular. I also enjoy a good perm debate, especially when Aff teams use creative perms.

Kritiks: I am open to hearing any Ks. That said, I'm not familiar with a ton of the lit base or terms of art, so please walk me through the story. While I’ve voted for them in the past, I think “reject the aff” or “do nothing” alts are not particularly persuasive. For me to vote for a K, you need to clearly articulate the alt and spend some time there.

Questions? Just ask!

Assistant Speech and Debate Coach for 11 years.

POLICY:

Please put me on the email chain: mark.skoglund AT gmail.com.

Overall: Tab, default policymaker and policy impact work is generally the most predictable path to my ballot. Tech over truth for the most part though there’s a line somewhere. I often take speech docs to check clipping but I try to not use speech docs for the decision unless there’s no other option. In general I am not a fan of embedded clash; do the work in the round.

Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I believe that enforcing disclosure with the ballot ends up favoring schools with resources against those without, rather than enforcing any sort of equal playing field. I also will not evaluate “which school has more resources” so I avoid voting on this argument entirely.

Speed: Fine with me, though I don’t judge as much as I used to so help me out on tags. Also if you speed through your theory block at the same rate as card text it’s not likely all going to end up on my flow.

Topicality: Default competing interps. I don’t think I have a particularly high threshold for T, though teams often do one of two things that are bad ideas:

1. Read a “precision bad” block against a “precision good” block and assume embedded clash.

2. Not focusing enough on which interp has better access to the standard and spending all the time on which standard is best.

Other Theory: I’m not likely to vote on blippy theory; do work if you want to win my ballot. Your strategy should not be to read 8 two-line theory arguments hoping the other team drops one.

Disads: I don't care if they're generic, but specific links assist in probability calculus.

Counterplans: If you’re not running a CP you’re probably making a strategic mistake with me. I lean Aff on delay CPs bad and to a lesser extent on consults bad, but I won’t do the work for you of course. I will not judge kick CPs unless clearly told to consider it by a team with justification, and the other team loses the debate re: the legitimacy of judge-kicking.

Kritiks: I’m fine with Ks, though you’ll be far more familiar with the lit base than I am, so help me out. In particular, if you’re going for the alt and I don’t understand what it is well enough, I can’t vote for it. “Reject the aff” is generally a weak alt unless it’s a discourse K or otherwise uniquely justified, but it wins often enough anyway.

Discourse/Reps Ks sidenote: I vote for discourse Ks fairly often when a team has said something exclusionary and do believe there is value in rejecting teams to correct that action in future. That said, there’s plenty of debate that can be had in this area.

***

Congressional Debate -

Experience: I have been coaching this event since 2007. My primary experience is with NSDA.

-Bigotry of any kind is not tolerated.

-Early foundational speeches can be just as important as later responsive speeches.

-When possible, direct clash is important. A late speech on legislation that does not cite/respond to anyone else is almost never very strong.

-When responding to/citing others, try to make it productive. An offhand mention just to prove you're following the debate is fine but doesn't do much to advance the debate forward; work in a response or distinguish someone else's point.

-If you are retreading ground someone else covered, you should clearly distinguish your analysis. Simply repeating past claims indicates someone is either not tracking the debate or is not well-researched and is penalized.

-Crystallization speeches are good when done well but you need to be adding value, typically at the impact weighing/framework level.

-Extending questioning periods is almost never productive (certainly not as productive as the speech we may have been able to have) and if the same competitor is repeatedly making that motion, the ranks may reflect that.

-Being a good, professional, and organized presiding officer is rewarded.

-I believe it is critically important for judges to consider whether a criticism would apply equally regardless of gender. For one obvious example, women are often penalized for the same focused aggression that men are rewarded for. The primary way to combat this is judges being conscious of implicit bias, and I try to ensure that I am fairly applying criticism.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

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

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

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

Congress Paradigm:

General:

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

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

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

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

Impacting:

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

Questioning:

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

Participation in Round:

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

PO:

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

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

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

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

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

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

A debate is a search for the truth. That's why, along with voting, debating is at the heart of America's democratic process.

So please call out people who just make things up.

Also important:

* Intros that are directly about the topic always beat generic intros that could apply to any topic.

* Quotations always beat paraphrase.

* Fully-cited evidence I can hunt down always beats "The New York Times tells us that . . ." (Remember: NSDA-minimum is name or publication and year. That's an absurdly low standard that makes zero sense for the new-resolution-every-hour world of Congress. Many Congress debaters still fail to meet it.) The challenge posed by AI will make attention to sources even more important.

* An authorship without an expert solvency advocate--a credentialed source who advocates what's in Section 1 of the bill or the Resolved clause--is cursed. An authorship which has an expert solvency advocate is blessed. I hold cursed bills against their authors/sponsors and reward blessed authors/sponsors. It's considered rude to point out that the only people in the whole world who think the bill is a good idea happen to be the handful of AFF speakers, but that argument is an automatic winner for NEG. A great nation doesn't make policy based on a random hunch. If you can't quote an expert who says "We should spend X billion on Y program" (for instance) then your bill is cursed. I won't, of course, hold cursed first-AFFs against speakers, because someone has to kick off. TL;DR: Find your Section 1 in your research. Don't just wing it.

* Giving the right kind of speech (constructive, rebuttal, summative/"crystallization") at the right time always beats giving the kind of speech you're best at without thinking about what the debate needs. I think I can tell an "oops, thought I'd PO" crystal from one that groups and clinches the best arguments in the round.

* Rehash is a venial, not a mortal, sin. And if you're a novice, always give the speech. That said, giving a third- or fourth-in-a-row is an admission of under-preparation.

* The assumption that everyone is going to give two speeches in a round seems fair, but it has pernicious effects. It discourages folks from speaking early. That in turn results in several "please, someone give a speech" moments in the round. It also discourages people from prepping the full agenda. I have mixed feelings about people ruthlessly taking speeches whenever they can. It's not friendly, but neither is stonewalling until some novice buckles and agrees to kick off the debate, and it's hard to blame someone who grabs a speech opportunity that's just sitting there.

* POs start at 1 on my ballot and lose ranks from errors. They can also be displaced by truly excellent speakers. The PO starts at 1 because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round. Can't have a round without the PO. The more people there are who run for PO, the faster the winning PO loses ranks from errors, because you're claiming you're better than everyone else who wanted it.

* Congress is speech *and* debate, so be sure you're listening and responding (debate) and keeping me focused on what you're saying (speech). Congress is getting too fast and burdened with jargon. The ideal Congress speaker is perfectly intelligible to someone who wandered into the room. A conversational pace is a supreme sign of confidence, and if your arguments are also the ones the round needs, you get the one.

* Respect the role-play, which is the only thing that has kept Congress from joining the long list of last decade's big new debate event that will solve everything but which is now moribund because the college kids got hold of it.

* My feedback more often plays the doubting game than the believing game. For instance, I often suggest arguments I think would be better. I do this to help debaters, which helps Congress, which is something I love. Anyone who spends a perfectly good weekend trying to honestly hash out trade policy etc. is a hero, and I encourage everyone to be their best, which is why my feedback is more full of "grows" than "glows." But you're glowing just by playing.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

I believe that Congressional debate should preserve the best qualities of policy debate while presenting speeches in a style that appeal to a lay listener. I debated policy in college, and I coached policy from 1972 to 1991, but I became discouraged with fast-talk and switeched to Congress.

I like speakers who prove their claims with credible evidence, and who clash with the most important claims of their opponents. I view the debate as an impartial witness who wants to vote for the best policy.

While I listen first for argument, I know that effective delivery can make any argument easier to grasp.

I appreciate gracious conduct in chamber and appropriate wit.

LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.

Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.