I prefer clear, coherent introductions to bills and to arguments. Rhetorical openings are fine, but not at the expense of the bill or the framework of the argument.

Please do not approach the bill or the floor ironically - debaters who argue in favor of things like genocide or dictatorship to be cute will be dropped. Clash honestly and with detailed flow. Be awake and aware of the debate; rehash is the Devil.

I prefer clear, coherent introductions to bills and to arguments. Rhetorical openings are fine, but not at the expense of the bill or the framework of the argument.

Please do not approach the bill or the floor ironically - debaters who argue in favor of things like genocide or dictatorship to be cute will be dropped. Clash honestly and with detailed flow. Be awake and aware of the debate; rehash is the Devil.

I coach Congress and Speech, so I value argumentation and delivery equally. Listen to the room, avoid rehash, be responsive to arguments. Finally, be respectful—we are here to grow, not to tear each other down.

As I evaluate debate rounds, a successful debate competitor/team will be strong in three aspects: initial presentation of their argument; strong and, when appropriate, source-based retorts to challenges; and passionate-but-respectful navigation of the event overall.

Presentation of one's argument should come in a thoughtful, deliberate speech that is paced appropriately and relatively easy to follow. Fast-paced presentations are not in and of themselves impressive; they still must be structured in a way that always comes back to the central question. I prefer presenters to lay out the path of their argumentation if they prefer to speak quickly. I weigh the logic, evidence, and sourcing of one's argument heavily. Style and comfort with public speaking is a tool that helps to deliver an effectively structured argument. Without the core elements that make up a solid argument, the style rings hollow.

The level of one's preparation for debate reveals itself in exchanges with competitors. Effective debaters tend to demonstrate an ability to anticipate tough lines of questioning and are prepared with responses that support their own viewpoint. Failing to anticipate the basic counter-arguments to one's position tends to significantly weaken one's own position.

In the heated exchange of ideas and arguments, I look for competitors who are able to hold their ground, argue passionately, maintain comportment, and also still be respectful of the rules and the competitors in the round.

Overall, I do not weigh these three areas equally. A strong, structured line of argumentation is paramount. Style and presentation are important, but only if the first element is already strong. And debate decorum does not score on its own, but it can most certainly detract from a competitor's scoring if they are disrespectful.

Have fun -- it is an honor to watch all of you!

My name is Gabrielle Cabeza and I am a junior at UPenn. I competed on the national circuit in Congressional Debate during high school. I believe that Congressional Debate is a beautiful hybrid of substantive debate and eloquent speaking. As such, I look for very strong argumentation with solid warrants and strong impacts as well as strong performance through pacing, tonal variation, and emotion. Be professional, courteous, and argumentative without being overly aggressive.

I was an active member of my high school speech & debate team, under an amazing coach, Ms. Croley, who instilled in us the true joy of forensics and its deeper impact on the larger community.

I have been judging high school students, for several years at the local, district, regional and national circuit tournaments and TOC. I have judged various categories and have great admiration for students who invest their efforts in the category selected. I started serving as a volunteer coach for younger students, from my teens, in part due to the legacy left by my late Coach.

In Congress -

I value substance and substantiation, and overall active involvement in the Chamber, through an organized presentation and active questioning.

Regardless of my own stance on a bill, I welcome convincing arguments with reliable sources.

Drama, unnecessary questions simply to garner attention and loudness, does not make a good legislator.

As competitors, I expect proper and thorough preparation prior to the session.

I expect the PO to be fair, respectful to all in the Chamber, with knowledge of proper procedures.

I competed in extemp for 6 years (3 in high school, 3 in college) along with doing Congress and some PF in HS and have since coached pretty much every speech event and world schools debate for the past 2 years. For reference, I'm a school-affiliated judge but work at a government contracting company doing work for the Marine Corps, so be warned that national security is my niche area of expertise.

WORLDS: I specifically look for students who use this style of debate to persuade (read: talk at a normal pace. Worlds was created to counter the trend of debates turning technical, and I'm going to try and uphold that as best I can).

PF: I look for logical consistency of arguments and general plausibility. Do not run Ks or anything else wild with me. I will not be persuaded by arguments like "because we use the word 'the' that means the world will end in nuclear war so vote pro" which I have seen run. Also, I can handle speed so long as you work up to it but I tend to deduct a few tenths of a speaker point for excessive speed since PF was never designed to be a technical debate event and I feel like that's going against the event standard as written by the NSDA. But if you want to spread then I will not automatically preclude you from winning the round and I will be perfectly capable of following along.

BOTH: Show me you care about your arguments, and show me why I should vote for you. I see plenty of debates where there's clash, but tell me why your side comes out on top at the end of the day. If both sides have the same position some clash will get declared a wash, and there's never a wash in debate because one side always does a better job fulfilling the value or criterion or impact better than the other side. Just saying you're winning an argument does not make it true, show me why you're winning and trace the progress of that clash for me. I do flow, but I'm not a fan of teams saying "extend contention ___" and then providing no reason why I should do that. Again, tell me why the opponent's response or lack thereof is sufficient to warrant extending something.

Other than that, have fun! I definitely notice when students are enjoying themselves and tend to give an extra style point (or speaker points in speech and PF) or two for that.

I’m going to keep this very simple; I am a High School English teacher. This is my 15th year of teaching. I really like congressional debate; I like the structure of it. If I am judging any other formats you will do well if I am understanding the topic/issue clearly and you are convincing me effectively of your stance. I prefer not to disclose right after rounds. Students who spread confuse me. I am listening and would like the opportunity to process your evidence and logically follow it.

Student Congress/ Congressional Debate

I really, really, really love judging Congress. I particularly enjoy being a Parliamentarian at larger tournaments. Not only do I really care about the rules being followed, but it's much nicer to watch one group of competitors the entire day as opposed to jumping around.

With that said, the norms of congress have changed a lot since I started competing 10 years ago - and I have some thoughts about them closer to the bottom of the Congress section of this paradigm.

What I'm looking for: Congressional Debate is neither a full speech event nor a full debate event. The entire event begins as speech and increasingly becomes a debate event with each passing cycle. What that means for you, as competitors, is that you need to modulate how and to what you're speaking based on where we are in the round.

Regardless of where you are in the round however, I request the following finer points:
1. Clear Signposting - Call it a thesis statement, call it a statement of intent, call it a summary. The end of your intro should be a description of what you will be talking about. "Pass this bill because of FIRST, Economic Impacts, SECOND, effects on marginalized communities, and THIRD, U.S. Hegemony." Doing that helps everyone in the room keep their notes together - and it will help you get some name callouts later during clash.

2. Sourcing - There are some facts that even someone walking in off the street would know - such stuff need not be cited. Any other claim MUST be cited for me to consider it. As an example, in a recent round regarding a carbon tax, a student was spouting off factoids about the effects of Canada's carbon tax in the past. I flowed none of it because there was no source.

3. Direct callouts - Obviously, first and foremost, be polite - but it is a very big pet peeve of mine when competitors just refer to 'the aff world' or 'a previous senator' when clashing or extending - everyone in the room has a name and likely has a placard, please use them.

4. Impacts - I am judging a debate, which means I need to have items on my flow. It is not enough to just tell me that "Solar Power should replace Fossil Fuels", you need to spoonfeed me the next steps of "Because Solar Power is renewable, which could lead to less pollution, which leads to a healthier constituency, which leads to......" ad infinitum. If you stop the argument too soon, it's going to fall pretty quickly once clash starts.

5. Effective techniques - Being an effective speaker is not just having the words written down. I expect competitors to make eye contact, correctly intonate, use volume to their advantage, and generally use all of those rhetorically effective devices that every great speaker in history has used.

Constructives - Constructive speeches make up the early section of a round. Cycles 1 and 2 are entirely (or almost entirely) constructive, and set the table for what the debate should be about. I expect these speeches to be well rehearsed and be the full 3-minute timer. By cycle 3, I expect clash and/or extension alongside constructive notions. By the beginning of cycle 5, constructions should be saved ONLY for arguments that are new and necessary to the chamber's understanding of the debate. Rehash of earlier arguments without proper extension (discussed below) will cause ballot point loss.

Extensions - Extension speeches aim to take existing arguments from your side and fortify them. They can occur as early as cycle 2, and notions of extension can occur as late as the final speech. As such, competitors should avoid using too much time on restating, and should try to instead add more impacts or context to the argument. As a very simple example, imagine a competitor says that a bill will cause water pollution, which is bad because it will affect drinking water and have negative health impacts. Your extension could quantify those negative health impacts (this is what I would describe as a direct extension), or even say that beside Senator X's drinking water point, that it could harm the environment and cause a lack of biodiversity (this is what I would describe as an indirect extension). I humbly insist that during extension portions of your speeches, you call out fellow senators by name.

Clash-This is where I find a lot of recent tournaments lacking. This is the most debate heavy part of Congress (go figure), and for many is the hardest thing to pull off effectively. Clash can occur as early as the second speech, and as late as the final one. A clash speech (what I lovingly refer to as a destructive), should call out a fellow senator by name, describe their point briefly, and then explain why their point may be incorrect or misleading. As a hypothetical - "Senator X tells you that switching to a flat tax will save the average American money on their tax bill. That may be true on just their tax bill, but according to the CBO, they will end up paying more out of pocket for the loss of governmental services that the flat tax incurs - what this means is that on balance, this bill harms our constituents." At no point should this devolve into name-calling, and should always remain polite. It is not enough to tell me that another senator is wrong, but to explain why (95% of the time this will require a source on top of an explanation).

Crystals-I find that Crystals are sometimes difficult to explain to those who haven't seen a really good one or haven't competed in other debate events. A crystallization speech aims to take the key points of debate over the round, and boil them down to a 3 minute speech that generally weighs one against the other. These speeches should really only happen during the last cycle of debate on a bill, but I will accept it in the penultimate cycle as well. A good crystal will explain that why on each of the main points of the round (i.e. Economic benefits, Protection of minority groups, Human Rights Abuses, etc), your side wins. By the end of a crystal, I should be able to boil down the debate to a post-it note, with the most salient arguments filling that paper. These speeches do not have to extend or clash at all, and in fact, some of the best ones do no such thing - they act as a round narrator, explaining to the judges and the room why a given side should win out. Of course, these can include clash and extension, but students should be careful to remember their main goal when speaking so late.

Questions/Cross-X -I would say that on average, 15% of my weighing of a student goes into how they do during questioning - and such weighing can be the tiebreakers when rounds are close.

I expect everyone to be polite during Cross-x. It doesn't necessarily have to be kind, but it must be respectful.

I expect questioners to keep their questions brief, and answers to get to the point. Lecturing, or otherwise getting on a soapbox, will affect your ballot.

That all said, I think there is a skill of knowing how and when to talk over your fellow competitors. Something like "Excuse me, I'm still speaking" or "Is the answer yes or no?" when things are getting contentious are difficult-to-pull-off but extremely memorable maneuvers.

I expect questions to be strategic, and not just be a way to cleverly have your argument heard before your speech.

A note for my Presiding Officers

I'll start with the most important thing - If I am your judge, and you PO, and do a mediocre job, you can generally expect a rank of at worst 5. If you do a great job, expect that rank to be higher. If you do a bad job, maybe you don't get ranked at all, but I want to be clear that I think a passable PO deserves to break out of any given PRELIM round.

If I am your parliamentarian, and you PO one session and fervently compete the other sessions, you can generally expect high ranks on your end-of-day ballot. At multiple tournaments I've parli-ed my PO's have ranked number 1 on my end of day ballot, but generally expect a top 4 finish - provided you're doing a job that is commensurate with the skill level of the room.

I think throughout my career I presided for more rounds than I spoke. The job of presiding is more important than the job of any other competitor in the room. You are the one who makes sure the round happens, makes sure it's fair, and ensures that rules are followed.

I expect my PO's to have a more-than-working-knowledge of the rules of order, this includes edge case rules like amendments that rarely come up. I expect my PO's to be able to run the room without my intervention should I be their Parli. But most importantly, I expect my PO's to be ready to rule things out of order when necessary. If all but one Senator has spoken on a bill, and somebody motions for previous question - a PO who asks that last speaker if they were planning to speak before getting seconds on the motion will, to me, shine as a competitor and a person.

As a note, however there are many situations that require my input as a parliamentarian, these include but are not limited to:
- Assessing amendments as germane or dilatory
- Dealing with non-competition emergencies (Medical, technological, etc)

And I will note, that there is nothing wrong with not knowing a rule. If a PO is expecting something to come up soon and asks me, as a Parliamentarian BEFORE any delays can result from their not knowing, they get some extra brownie points for their foresight.

I abhor this new norm of base-x gentleperson's agreements. You are first and foremost, at a COMPETITION, and should want to speak. Speaking more gives the judges more data points to make informed decisions. Everyone only speaking once actively harms the best prepared competitors, and lets those who haven't prepped well enough slide by without regressing to the mean. I find it absolutely disrespectful to my time and the other judges' time for students to hamstring themselves, and then end rounds 20+ minutes early because there was some asinine agreement to speak once each. And secondarily, you are roleplaying as Congresspeople - and any Congressperson worth their salt would love the screen time for more floor speeches, so to give that up is a travesty. And what I find the most infuriating is to watch a student get put down or told not to speak a second time by the rest of the chamber because of some non-enforceable Base-X agreement. It is not that student's fault that the rest of the chamber didn't prep or is unwilling to speak a second time.

And I know there's an argument of 'unfairness' in Congress, that some people may get to speak more than others without some agreement. My honest response is that it's actually more unfair to have these base-x agreements. I judge rounds to see lively debate, and lively debate cannot happen if only a handful of Senators are speaking per bill. If lively debate doesn't happen, students don't learn the skills necessary to thrive past the third cycle of speeches.

I do my best to judge as fairly and with as little bias as possible. Speaking fewer times than other competitors is not a death sentence, and actively having to game the recency chart I think is its own little strategic metagame that doesn't detract from Student Congress, but adds to it.

The Long and Short of it is this - Any competitor trying to dissuade others from competing to the best of their ability will be losing points on their ballot. Any competitor who starts a discussion on base-X agreements that delays the beginning of a round I am a part of will also be losing points on their ballot. If students want to have these agreements, fine, but do not delay the round or try to force everyone else to follow it.

A note on taking splits - I know that actively prepping both sides of a bill takes arguably twice as long as prepping only one. So I do understand the value in taking splits, insofar as it is likely that some competitors are only able to speak on one side. Taking splits should take less than a minute, and should not be a discussion that eats into debate time. However, students who go into the breach for the sake of the chamber and give a speech they were otherwise unprepared to do will get some extra points on their ballot from me for helping the chamber move along.

That said, I would prefer my competitors have everything prepped and be able to speak at any point in the round - Constructive, rebuttal, extension, or crystal.

Public Forum

I don't have much to say about PF, as judging is pretty streamlined. I heavily take framework and definitions into account, and I do not flow crossfire if you don't bring it back up in a speech. At the end of day, I want you to treat me like I know absolutely nothing. If you walk me through your arguments in a coherent fashion I am much more likely to give you the win.

When it comes to speed - I don't do well with it. I struggle to flow effectively when someone is speaking too fast. So if you spread or go too quickly I will struggle to completely flow your case and that could hurt you on my flow.

I think I would define myself as a hybrid judge. My view of Public Forum is that someone who knows absolutely nothing should be able to walk into the room and understand what's happening. What this means is that if you do run K's or theory or anything to that effect, it needs to be outright explained in a way that even a complete stranger could understand. However, I do generally believe that argumentation on the resolution and topic is more valuable to the round and your case than a K or a theory shell.

If you happen to share your case with your opponents, feel free to add me in on the chain at nicholasduca51@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

I would like to watch a debate about the resolution, its impacts, and other implications - all theory and K's should be saved for only the most dire of circumstances. I've spectated and/or judged a number of LD rounds across my career and I have only ever thought one K was strategically correct to run. Two students of color were debating, and one student was effectively tasked with proving white supremacy was good. Not only is this uncomfortable for everyone involved, it's likely harmful to both student-competitors. I agreed with this point and dropped that from the flow entirely. If I am watching a round and you are considering a K and your situation doesn't meet the unfairness-bar of a BIPOC student having to defend white supremacy, do not run it.

Other than that, keep spreading to a minimum, please project, and everything else should fall into place.

~Absolutely no spreading (abusing all our ears with speaking so quickly no one can possibly understand everything you say).

~No progressive cases (based solely upon one thing leading to another leading to the end of the world, they don't work)

~Finally, just be polite and do your best; I'm here to judge your performance in a given instance, not judge your worth as a human being.

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.

Honestly my main voters are in clarity of speech and the logical flow of your arguments. Only real advice is that it is always better to make two really good points than 3 only okay ones. Follow your heart

I am judging the competition for the first time. I look forward to hearing different perspectives from bright students on topics of relevance to us all. I would value highly clear delivery of thoughts at a comfortable pace.

Please do not rehash other people's arguments!! It's better to just not give a speech than to give a speech that just repeats what other people have already said. Also clash should start from the third speech for every item, and make sure the questions you ask have a purpose (not just: "so can you clarify/elaborate on ___??")

If you choose to PO please don’t mess up precedence and do not promise people speeches ahead of the round (that's really just unfair) :)

she/they

I debated for West Orange High School for 4 years in PF (& a little Congress). Let's be real, none of us really care about my competitive record. You can look it up on the NSDA website if you want specifics.

Crucial stuff first, then event specific stuff further down. If you still have questions after reading my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask! And ALWAYS feel free to reach out with any further questions - my email is niamh.harrop@gmail.com :)

And, of course, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, etc!

EVIDENCE: This is at the top of my paradigm because it is the most important issue for me. If you are found to be falsifying/misrepresenting evidence, you can expect to lose the round. I will not call for evidence unless told to do so, as I believe that to be a form of judge intervention. That doesn't mean tell me to call for every single card, but if you believe something to be misrepresented, tell me to call for it and I'll do so at the end of the round.

Evidence calls should not take forever. If you take more than two minutes to find a card, I'm going to assume you don't have it and will likely drop your speaks. Once three minutes have elapsed, I'm going to ask that you drop the card and move on. If you provide a cut card and the opponent subsequently asks for a PDF, I'll give you a little more time to pull it up and locate the cited portion.

Also, the NSDA allows you to make a formal challenge against evidence, which will end the round at the point you issue the formal protest and defer judgment on the evidence to me. If you are right and the evidence is falsified, you win, but if I don't believe it has been misrepresented, you will lose. I believe evidence challenges like these are a fantastic tool when used correctly, and if you truly believe that your opponent is violating the evidence standards in a crucial way, I encourage you to utilise this tool.

JUDGING STYLE: Tabula rasa in terms of the topic. I like clear, easy-to-understand extensions - nothing blippy, no extensions through ink, just pure warranted extensions. If you want me to consider an arg, make sure it's in your final speech.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but I hate spreading. I think it's ableist and prevents newer/less funded programs from breaking into the top tiers of debate. Nine times out of ten I will vote against it. Complain about it if you want, I'm just trying to caution you.

If you choose to spread, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask that you add me to the email chain (niamh.harrop@gmail.com) before the round begins, and please send me any cards that you spread in later speeches. Also understand it is going to be much harder for me to follow logic/warranting that you spread but don't include in the email chain. I can do the whole "clear" thing if you like, but chances are I'd be saying it a good amount. I will happily evaluate everything that is read into round if I can follow and comprehend it. However, there may be something you read into round that I miss because of spreading, and by choosing to spread, you accept and understand that this may occur.

PF: I tend to give a little bit of leeway with going over time. I'll flow until about 4:10 in the constructive, for example, but once you hit 4:15, I'm putting my pen down and I'm done paying attention. If your opponents go over time, don't call it out, bc I promise I'm not flowing or considering it. Call it free prep :)

I don't typically flow author names in the constructive. If you prefer to refer to your cards by author name in sum/FF, it helps me if you extend the warrant into rebuttal/sum as well.

Given that you now have three minutes for a summary, I'm a little harsher on what strategic choices are made in the summary speeches for both teams (I only had two minutes and yes I'm just a tad bit salty). I'm not going to vote on terminal defence so it's cool to leave that out of later speeches.

CONGRESS:

I know a lot of Congress competitors don't read paradigms. I can always tell when people don't read mine, and I don't really hold it against anyone in rankings or anything. My paradigm is here to help you understand how to best impress me and earn a high ranking.

I evaluate speaking style as much as I evaluate argumentation. Rehash sucks, we all know it, and after 3-4 people making the same arguments on each side, it's probably about time for something spicy and new. I'm more inclined to rank those with fresher argumentation.

I rank the PO about half the times I judge, and it comes down to a fair and efficient chamber. If you can run things smoothly, fairly, and painlessly, please consider POing.

If there's one thing I can't stand in Congress, it's the constant fight to be the one to "run the chamber" by calling for every motion. IMO it doesn't project the dominance you think it does; I couldn't care less who motions to move to previous questioning. I see this a lot more on the local circuit, but yeah, I'm not a fan.

Related to that is the issue of "politics" and gaming the chamber so that your competitors don't get to speak. In that regard, fair game. I view Student Congress as a mirror of the US Congress; if they set an example and you follow it, I can't fault you for that. That being said, don't allow the push to prevent people from speaking to descend into a mess and waste time (i.e., if you take up 3 minutes arguing over whether we should move to previous questioning, you've prolonged the discussion enough to prevent their speech). If this kind of filibustering occurs, I will probably be harsher in my rankings on the people who filibustered, and will be kinder in my rankings to the competitor who was unable to speak.

In Congressional Debate, sources are important (date and source name; author if necessary). Analysis is important. Introducing new ideas to the debate are also important (NO REHASH). I will primarily be paying attention to these things. Participating in CX is important to show consistent engagement and should especially be used to add on to your arguments presented in round! Lastly, I am always in favor of quality > quantity. That is if Senator A has given 2 great speeches and a 1 terrible speech while Senator B has given two excellent speeches, I will most likely prefer Senator B.

CFL Policy Update

Judged alot of policy in my career, understand most policy arguments but you should walk me through voting off them (Ks, Topicality, etc. I am comfortable with. Speed isnt an issue if you disclose and honestly probably shouldnt be even if you do not so dont feel obligated.

Email for disclosure brendanjkane1998@gmail.com

(About Me:

I am the Assistant Coach at Xaverian in New York City, in charge of debate (Mainly congress and PF but I have a background in policy and LD) Since I'm mainly going to be judging Congress and Public Forum Debate this year I will break down my paradigm into congress and PF

FOR PF

TLDR tabula rasa - go fast but slow on tags, I like disclosure and evaluate basically any arg but walk me through it

General

At heart I am a tech over truth Flow centric judge who pretty much defaults to a standard offense/defense paradigm. I try my hardest not to be an interventionist IE i try and be tabula rasa. If you plan on doing any weird strategies just run it by me before he round (I.E. run a condo theory shell), because it's very possible I don't have experience with that particular argument(I never really ran them much but I understand most). If I'm not familiar with a technical pre fiat argument, walk me through it because I will be open to voting for it.

I will disclose if the tournament let's me, if they don't and you see me outside of round and I'm not doing anything, feel free to approach me and I'll gladly take out my flow and discuss the round.

Speed

I was always on the faster side so I'm cool with speed, just be aware, if you go super fast, I will stop flowing card names so try not to just extend a card by author last name but instead what it says too (If you slow down on tags I should be fine but most people don't).

LMK before the round if yall plan to be fast or not, I prefer for faster rounds to flow on paper since I am just more use to it from years of debating but if you guys plan to go like 200 WPM I will just flow on my laptop.

Feel free to ask in round if I have been flowing cards but anything south of like 300 I should be able to flow cards unless unforeseen circumstances occur.

If you disclose and I am on the email chain feel free to go as fast as you want.

Evidence Standards

I prefer dates in case and blocks(I get it if you don't but in the future please try). If you lie about evidence I'm at minimum dropping the evidence and at worst dropping you. I will call for evidence if:

A. I'm told to.

B. It's crucial in my decision.

C. I have reason to believe it doesn't say what you say it says

Summary/FF

I expect in first summary you to extend case (PLEASE FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENT'S RESPONSES) and to extend turns. Terminal Defense does not have to be in first summary. For second summary I expect anything you plan on having be in FF be in summary.

Theory

I don't have the highest threshold for theory but I'll certainly evaluate the argument if it's made.

IDC if it is shell or spike format I will evaluate either.

Road maps

For road maps, I'd much prefer you just tell me where you start if you aren't doing anything insane. If you plan on running an overview I need you to tell me where to flow it.

If the flow gets super super messy feel free to literally take me step by step with your roadmap I trust your judgement here.

Signposting

Just please do it.

It is not my obligation to figure out where things go in a debate- if you signpost poorly things will get lost and I won't evaluate responses you give

Speaker Points (also addresses disclosure)

SO this is the thing that is largest variable in my judging from tournament to tournament. If you respect that I am a flow judge you will probably get good speaks, but how good varies by weekend since I still haven't fully fleshed out how I want my speaker points scale to work out.

No matter what if you disclose your case to your opponents (if you email add me to the email chain brendanjkane 1998@gmail.com so I can verify and because it will make my life easier to flow) I will give .5 extra speaks for doing so.

If it is already on the PF wiki just LMK

Misc

If I flowed on my laptop feel free to email me after with what round and flight I judged you and I can give you my flow.

If anything is unclear in my RFD or comments feel free to email me.

You can be funny and I will appreciate that but if you cross the line I will lower speaks.

If your case is like 1K plus words I will flow it on 2 pieces of paper so signpost or else things will get lost.

Don't feel you have to wait for me to enter the room or do a coin flip.

I am human I may make the wrong decision but in the end I will try my best to fairly evaluate the round.

@PFVideos If someone wants to record the round plz get consent from both teams (if one team competing is recording PLZ ask the other if this is okay) if I discover one team is recording without consent I will drop that team. If you get consent feel free to record my RFD if you want

Still have yet to squirrel

Congress

General

So I've watched and competed in a lot of congress rounds and am an assistant coach mainly in congress. If I am parling a round you are in I will track reverse activity(If PO is using it to select questioners) and recency for speeches. If I am not parling I will not, but I usually can tell even without a recency chart if you mess up. I tend to flow the round, and I write my ballot during questioning(if there is no questioning, then I will not be flowing or else I would not have time to write your ballots).

Feel free to ask me questions about your performance after I've submitted my ballot (if I'm parling between session or after the tournament), I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

If I parli

very non interventionist or I try to be unless an issue with fairness arises

Authorships/Sponsors

I unlike most other judges truly value a solid author that sets up a debate. I understand that in the SQuo, authors (especially on the second bill of a session) are really discouraged and I get it, but I personally make an effort to try to not continue that skew.

Something also that differentiates me is that if your bill produces a solid, balanced debate, I will give you a bonus for it(this is my way of rewarding good, balanced bills).

Clash/Preemptive Responses

In regards to Clash, I expect It in every speech past the first affirmative.

For preemptive responses, I feel they often are disjointed whenever I hear them (that shouldn't discourage you but should let you know that I rarely see it done properly). If it's done properly I'll appreciate it

Late Speeches

In later speeches I expect more clash than new arguments.

Just aside I have noticed in my own judging that I rank people who frame debates very well- take that how you will

IE Events

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an IE paradigm, if I'm judging you in a speech round and you've read this please tell me, since it enough people do I will write one.

If you have any questions for me before your speech feel free to ask.

hi! i'm angie khadijah. i studied philosophy at columbia (barnard class of '22) and competed on the houston circuit for 4 years @ cinco ranch high school. i've worked for the NYCUDL, judged at national circuit tournaments, and currently work with the Brooklyn Debate League (BDL) -- i'm passionate about speech advocacy!

questions about my paradigm? wanna chat? confused about my decision? feel free to email me! angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

tldr; give me a weighing mechanism so you don't leave the round confused by my decision. impact thru everything. link chains are super important. i will always look for the clearest path to the ballot and try to be as tab as possible.

speed is totally fine, but clarity is essential in this activity. use jargon when its needed please.

i will drop a debater who wields anti-Black/racist/unapologetically insensitive etc. speech or behavior if their opponent asks me to. this is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

LD

please add me to the email chain: angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

i am down to hear anything. this is your space, please use it how you'd like. i recognize the labor and time invested in this activity by so many of you, and sincerely thank you for sharing it with me.

i like kritikal debates, though i aim to be an approachable and reasonable judge for all levels/styles of debate :)

i am *not* the judge for you if t is your entire neg strat. i am not as well versed on t as some other judges and often find complex theory debates to be frivolous. i will hear anything, but want to remain fair to you!

i vote tech > truth but will definitely discuss truth-y issues if its problematic or if you wanna philosophize after the round.

i love performance and GREATLY appreciate all attempts to make the debate space less elitist + more radical.

impacts and links are important to me!

i avg 28.5 speaks. earn a 30 by being unique and memorable :)

yes i disclose and always try to give constructive feedback to both sides

PF

summary is the most important speech of the round, followed by rebuttal.

weigh! impact! tell me how to vote!! i love unique args.

i vote off my flow, looking for the clearest path to the ballot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debate is about education imo. feel free to talk about this space w me before or after round (or in round...do what you want)

HAVE FUN!! seriously, this activity is great and i hope to foster an inviting and intellectually rigorous space in all my rounds.

About Me:

My name is Erin and I am comfortable with any and all pronouns. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate in high school and competed in American parliamentary debate at the beginning of my time in college (pre-Covid). I am also the Assistant Coach at my old high school, primarily in charge of all things Debate :)

Congress:

I firmly believe that the event is very much a mixture of both speech and debate - do not be afraid to be more performative while speaking, after all, you are a member of congress!! But this does not mean that you should sacrifice good argumentation and the content of your speech for the sake of putting on a show!! If you are able to combine the two in a cohesive, smooth way you are off to a good start!

Speeches: I (like most judges) primarily look for strong argumentation, unique impacts, and strong, relevant rhetoric. Your argumentation should be solid and easy to follow along (no gaps in the link chains!) and should have clear structure. After the first round of speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect there to be some clash and/or extensions on what the previous debaters have stated. But please watch out for rehash!! Show me you are paying attention to your fellow speakers in your speech, but avoid repeating their contentions (unless you are running a solid extension). In terms of types of speeches, each round of congress should follow a similar flow style, going from constructive to rebuttals and then crystals. Do not be worried about how speaking towards the end of a bill will affect your placing!!! Sometimes a good, strong crystallization speech is worth a lot more than a copy-paste constructive speech! (It shows you are paying attention to everything being said in the round as well as shows you can think quickly on your feet - which is very impressive!) The use of meaningful and relevant rhetoric to help break up and break down the arguments is greatly appreciated and highly recommended! The one case where rhetoric is not appreciated is in the instance where canned rhetoric is used - try to come up with more original sayings rather than use generic ones that have been around since before I was competing…

Sourcing: I have no real preference when it comes to what sources you use in your speech. News sources are fine but don’t cite news sources with known bias or an insane amount of editorialization and op-ed writing. When citing your sources please include at least a last name, year, and publication; you do not need to provide qualifications but they are a bonus if you use them!

Questioning: This is very important!! Being active in the chamber can really help boost your overall ranking by helping you stand out, especially if you are nervous about being marked down for only speaking once due to poor recency. Good questions and answers can be the tiebreaker in situations where I am conflicted between two speakers of similar caliber. That being said - please don’t ask trap questions!! If you are competing you should have enough know-how and evidence to ask fair questions and use that information given to help talk about it in a later speech. Forcing questions is smart, but forcing answers is abusive. Last but not least - QUALITY over QUANTITY always!!

Speaking + Speed: Spreading in rounds is totally cool, so long as you are clear and concise!! If the competitors and/or judges can’t understand what you are saying, it makes it difficult for your arguments to be used in the round. The need for speed is okay (trust me I was the same way I understand completely) but sometimes less is more!! Do not try to speak faster just to fit in more arguments - instead, prioritize what you think is important and use your time wisely.

PO: I greatly appreciate the role of the PO, and as long as you do not mess up royally you are guaranteed a rank! POs should be able to control the room without having to be loud or forceful. A great PO is one who understands how the event works - makes no procedural errors, runs a quick and efficient chamber, and most importantly, is FAIR to all competitors in the room. I’ve been around long enough to be able to get a feel of who knows who in a chamber within the first few minutes. Any obvious favoritism towards certain speakers when picking questioners and speakers will not go unnoticed or unpunished. If I am your parliamentarian and you have a procedural or general question in round, do not be afraid to ask!! I would much rather you ask and get it correct than guess and make a mistake. Make sure to keep a clear chart for keeping track of precedence and recency, as a judge (and more so as a parli) I tend to keep one of my own as it helps me keep track of competitors, so I will know if you make a mistake!

Above everything else, everyone should respect one another. If you are acting a fool and putting others down incessantly both in or outside of the chamber, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Talent does not excuse poor behavior, and therefore will not be unpunished. I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are all smart enough to know better, and the usage of anything to this level will not be tolerated (it does not matter if you do not believe it- you should not need to use it to make a point). Be respectful of one another and it will be a great day!

When I am acting as parliamentarian at state and national level tournaments - my critiques on tabroom will be more general based and directed to the whole chamber. If you would like a copy of your own specific critiques and/or have any questions as to why I said what I said - feel free to send me an email (erincnmohr@gmail.com) with your name, speaker code, and what round I judged and I will get back to you after the tournament is over!

Also if you recognize me from the internet no you don't <3 /j

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

* Congress *

Just a couple notes on places where I may differ from certain other judges.

First: I see Congress as a true speech AND debate event. Rhetoric, passion, body language, facial expression, changes in pace & tone, the use of pathos & humor (where appropriate) -- these things matter! If your speech is three straight minutes of speed-reading through a list of arguments and cites, you'll absolutely get credit for the evidence & argumentation, but you'll also get dinged for treating it as a CX round, which it is not.

And, second: I find I'm much more impressed by discernible consequences than by abstract notions of fairness or inequity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about big ideas, about right & wrong -- that's great, by all means you should include it. But if, for example, your Neg speech boils down to, 'Alright, the bill is better than the status quo and, sure, no one in particular is really harmed by it. But the legislation doesn't go far enough, and the benefits of the bill are distributed in an unequal way, therefore the bill is unjust and we must negate' ... then to my thinking you've accidentally given an Aff speech. Oops.

History has shown that not all judges see this issue the same way I do, and that's fine. But if you're trying to game my ballot, show me tangible harms or tangible benefits.

tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).

-----

I was the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania from 2018-2020, and I am currently a freelance judge when needed. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Bulgarian English Speech and Debate Tournament (BEST) Foundation. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in the Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.

I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.

-----

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morgan.elizabeth.rowe@gmail.com if you have any more questions.