As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

A 2023 TOC PF SPECIFIC NOTE:Treat me as super lay- remember that I am a Congress coach first. Give me clear voters. Do not spread, and in general I would recommend against running theory of any kind in front of me in PF. Oftentimes, I feel that theory in PF is "half-baked" and it is hard for me to buy. I have voted off of it in rounds before, but I really am not a fan. I believe second rebuttal has to address both sides of the flow, and that summary must crystallize- not just be rebuttal 2.0. I will vote neg on presumption if the affirmative fails to meet the burden of proof or if the flow is insoluble. Please avoid paraphrasing if possible. My honest advice to teams who want a super technical judge is to strike me, I don't judge a ton of PF and I am sure my flow speed is not up to what yours is right now.

Biography:

Hello! My name, as seen above, is Amrit Ammanamanchi. I am the Head of the Congressional Debate Program and an Assistant Coach for Debate at Millard North High School, my alma mater. As a debater I was coached by both Aarron Schurevich and Charles Fisher, and so I would say it is safe to assume that anything I do not explicitly address here will follow the line of reasoning that they present in their paradigms.

I completed my undergraduate studies within Barrett, the Honors College at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona by double majoring in Biological Sciences with a concentration in Biomedical Sciences (BS) and Political Sciences (BS) with a certificate in International Studies. I currently conduct scientific/medical research doing clinical outcomes research analytics for a major hospital, and have previously conducted research in both the relationship between mitochondrial dysfunction and autism and pulmonary edema. You can see my publications here. My honors thesis explored the intersection of science and religion within the context of the law and education, which you can read here. I am currently a JD Candidate, and I aspire to work at the intersection of law and medicine in the future.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate was my primary event in high school, and is a competition that is near and dear to me. As such, I have many thoughts on the event itself- if you want to talk about that I would be more than happy to talk to you after round. Also, if you stay after round it is VERY likely that I will be more than willing to give you individualized feedback that may not have been written out on a ballot. I am willing to share this with you because debate is fundamentally a teaching game. It serves no purpose if no one is learning and/or improving.

As far as the information you are probably worried about:

In general know that I believe in Congress that every speech one gives should be forwarding debate. Please do not rehash. I pay attention to questioning- both how you respond to questions and how you ask questions in round. That will undoubtedly impact your rankings on my ballot. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I expect there to be clash every speech except the authorship. Also please note that I did Congress and was a national qualifier. I know when you try to make political moves- it is a part of this event. Make sure you are making ones that are actually beneficial to the round and not ones that benefit only you and hurt others.

A note on being the Presiding Officer:

Being selected from amongst your peers to preside over the chamber is an honor and a privilege. It is a crucial role and is one that needs to be done in both an efficient and accurate (to Parliamentary Procedure) manner. Because of this, I am more than happy to rank PO's. However, if your goal is to win the tournament I would not take this route. If your goal is to just place then it is a much safer bet, as I rarely have ballots where the PO is not ranked at all.

Public Forum:

In PF, see the paradigm for Aarron Schurevich (Paradigm). I agree with most of everything on there except for the "General Note" in regards to unconventional things in round. Remember that I judge congress most of the time, and while I did compete in PF, that was minimally and a long time ago, so I may not be at the level that you are. Also assume I know nothing about the topic, as I do not regularly work in the PF realm.

It may also benefit you greatly to read through the paradigm for Charles Fisher (Paradigm). On a final note, please remember that I am not bound to these paradigms, so feel free to talk to me before round on specific questions you may have.

Lincoln-Douglas and Policy

You are looking at the wrong paradigm... There is no way I am judging either of these events. If by some strange reality I am in fact judging you in these events try to cater to as lay of a judge as possible, as I never debated either of these events and have only a minimal understanding of either event.

Apologies for this being so brief. If you have any questions please email me at aammanamanchi@arizona.edu

Best of Luck!

Sincerely,

Amrit Ammanamanchi

My name is Manoj Bagul and I’ve been judging Congress for the past three years.

In judging I look for THREE main things.

• First, logical argumentation. If you want to get a point across, it has to make sense and have flow otherwise it will be very diffcult for me to rank properly.
• Second, have evidence that ACTUALLY supports your analysis. Oftentimes, I hear evidence and analysis that does not match up with one another and it feels like you put them together just for the sake of it. Along with that, please cite your evidence so that you can prove its authenticity and credibility.
• Finally, this event is congressional DEBATE not speech. This means two things. First, you should be mentioning other speakers after the first affirmative speech. Second, your questioning blocks are super important so please answer them well and you will get bumped up.

I look forward to great debate, good luck everyone!

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!

I competed in PF debate all four years of high school (NCFL) and I vote based off of the flow. Whatever experience we bring to the table, operate under the assumption that I and every other judge you have knows absolutely nothing: tell us why your opponents' arguments are flawed, don't apply, or if they weigh less than yours. Don't assume that attacking your opponent's contention once in rebuttal automatically drops it. If the opponent addresses your critique well and you don't come back against it, it might likely stand.

I understand that debate can narrow in on a topic or two, but you should also work to extend your own contentions or state that they have gone unaddressed by your opponents. PF doesn't require plans but if your opponent asks something as simple as "how will that work" and you say "PF doesn't require plans" to shut own a line of questioning, I will not consider that a substantial defense; no one is asking for a ten-year plan, but you should still demonstrate an understanding of the card or argument you are advancing. Grand X is supposed to involve everyone, please make an effort to have everyone speak at least once. I'm fine with whatever speed you want to go at, but speak your contention headlines and major pieces of evidence clearly; if you want me to weigh them heavily make sure I can hear them.

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 am a parent judge and have been judging for the past two years at various tournaments. I value clear communication, and persuasive delivery. Speed and debate jargon will make it harder for me to follow you. I also value respectful engagement during crossfire. Make sure you actually let your opponents answer the questions you ask, and don't be insulting or mean. I take notes, and I try to practice flowing, but appreciate when students focuse on a few important arguments rather than making lots of individual answers. This also means that when you reference arguments from earlier speeches you should not refer to them by the author's name, but rather by the claim/thesis of the argument - the author's name generally will not be on my paper and it won't really have any meaning on it's own. I generally place more value on impacts with a high likelihood rather than a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument is the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Often the side with the clearer, more intuitive and better explained/defended story is the one I vote for in the end. At the end of the round, please make sure to clearly tell me why the arguments you think you're winning are more important than the arguments your opponents might win. If you don't clearly compare these impacts you leave it open for me to do, and you may not like the result. Thanks, and have a great tournament!

• I've been coaching in southeast Florida since 2000, and have had national qualifiers in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and World Schools Debate. Some have even advanced beyond prelims!

(1) Picture ... if you will ... your 93-year-old great-grandfather. In order for him to understand the words coming out of your mouth, you must speak clearly. Very clearly. I'm not 93, or your great-grandfather (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge I'm not - and if I am, why am I judging you? You're my great-grandchild! Conflict of interest!), but I weigh clarity highly. If I cannot understand you, and stop flowing (whether via old-school "putting the pen down" or new-school "no longer pounding away on my laptop keyboard"), you are probably losing the round. Badly.

(1a) My iPad tends to merge words together when I try to flow using electronic ballots. Which means I sometimes miss arguments while trying to fix the hot mess typos. Or when I look back on the round to review, there’s chunks missing. Clarity in your presentation will go a long way toward me remembering what you said and why it was important. “Speed kills” isn’t just about how you drive on the roadways. Speaking of which ...

(1b) Debate is an educational communications activity. It's about persuasion; competitors ought to hone and practice the skills that will be effective in the real world; I expect no less in a debate round. Spewing out random crap just because you think a 72nd argument will win you the round won't cut it. The ONLY spreading that matters is cream cheese on a toasted onion bagel. (Mmmmm, toasted onion bagel ... with cream cheese ... and lox ...)

But I digress.

(2) In Policy Debate, "End of the world" nuke war-type arguments don't sway me. (Actually, this holds true in all other debate events, too!) We've somehow managed to survive the Cold War, Krushchev's shoe-banging incident, and that immature Canadian singer who makes me want to puke (and whose name I refuse to print or say).

(2a) I rarely call for cards. Like, I’ve done it maybe twice in 15+ years? Don’t expect to be the third.

(3) I prefer substance over style.

(3a) I also prefer you treat your opponent and the judge (and, in a paired event, your partner) like they are human beings. DO NOT GO DONALD TRUMP IN A ROUND - YOU WILL LOSE POINTS, AND PROBABLY LOSE THE ROUND ... BADLY.

(4) In Lincoln Douglas Debate, I'm really old school - it's a philosophical debate, not a forum to jam statistics and facts down my throat. Notice that "OLD SCHOOL" has the initials "LD" embedded in the name. Live it; learn it; know it.

(5) I am not a "point fairy" (earning a 30 from me is damn next to impossible) but am not overly harsh ... unless you do something reallllllllly stupid or insulting, in which case, fear my wrath! Also, I will deduct an entire point if I don't believe you are flowing the majority of the time you should be OR if you pack-up your belongings and don't take notes/look at your flow during my RFD/critique. (BTW, I rarely disclose, but I will offer analysis of things that occurred during the round.)

(6) Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia rocks my dirty socks. So do Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (RIP, Tom!), Monty Python, the Detroit Red Wings, and Mountain Dew. Sadly, I'm not supposed to have Ben & Jerry's or Mountain Dew anymore (damn you, Type 2 diabetes!), but such is life. Then again, we've survived that previously-referenced Canadian singer ... so far ...

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) :)

Social studies teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Off time road maps, eh. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

In my career I have debated in over 60 tournaments mainly in Congress but partly in PF, Policy, and Extemp.

Most important part of both paradigms: Respect your opponents

Congress Paradigm:

POs - I was a PO in almost every tournament I have competed in since I began. As a result, I have a solid understanding of procedure and how POs should act. I will track questioning and recency to ensure you are following the rules you establish. Questioning recency like speeches is preferred but just using the number of questions to pick is fine too. Therefore, while I am perhaps harsher to PO mistakes, I very much reward good POs in my ranks. I am not afraid to give the PO the 1 if I believe they are deserving of it.

Speeches - After the authorship, you should have clash and/or extensions of previous debaters. I am among the school of thought that congress is constructives then rebuttals then crystals. If you are on the last cycle of debate and introducing new arguments, it will probably not bode well. Each type of speech is equally as important. I get that people don’t want to give authors because good clash raises your rank generally. However, a well made authorship is just as good as a well made crystal. While argumentation is very important and holds a weight of around 80% of my decision making for ranks, speaking is also very important. You should have meaningful rhetoric and flow smoothly while speaking. If you speak quickly I am 100% okay with that. However, make sure you can still convey the quality of your argument.

Questioning - Very important! If you give the author and don’t ask any questions you will most likely be forgotten in the round and it will hurt your ranks. If I am conflicted between who to rank higher because speech quality was similar, questioning will make or break your rank. On that note, I do not want to see you ask 20 questions that don’t further the depth of the debate your rank will be hurt. If you only ask 5 questions and they are all very good and change the scope of the debate or set-up your arguments, that is much more preferable.

Politics - I did the event for 4 years. I know what goes on in Facebook chats etc. It is pretty easy to tell if someone is being biased as a PO or otherwise. If you actively try to hurt other competitors you will be dropped on my ballot.

Other - Jokes are always a nice way to break up the flow of the debate and will be rewarded

Public Forum:

TLDR - Flow judge - will vote on frameworks presented - summaries and FF very important in decision

Speaking - Spreading is fine. Just let me know beforehand and give me a roadmap to make my flow easier.

Cases and Rebuttals - Keep them organized and flowing smoothly. Sign post. Not much to say otherwise.

Summary/FF - In my opinion, these can make or break your round. Both as a competitor and a judge I have seen tons of teams ahead after Cases and Rebuttals and give poor Summaries and FF and lose the round. It does not matter if you proved something to be true if you do not weigh it in the scope of the round and why it matters.

Evidence - I will only look at evidence if I am asked to do so or if I believe something said is blatantly untrue. If you fake evidence, chances are you will not win the round. Do not fake evidence.

Theory - Not too well-versed in it but I can understand it. Only do it if there’s a real abuse.

Speaker Points - Varies by tournament strength, but I try to be consistent. Not afraid to give a perfect score if it is deserved but will rarely do so. I try to not give speaks under 25. You either have to do very poorly or have a real abuse in the round to fall below.

Other - Jokes are always a nice way to break up the flow of the debate and will be rewarded

I am a parent judge from Bridgewater-Raritan in NJ. I have been judging various tournaments across all events for the past two years. I want the competitors to enjoy a healthy debate by keeping time and enjoy the competition with fellow competitors.

My name is Morning Leveille and I have judged a variety of events over the years, from Congress to OO to LD to Duo. If you name it, I've judged it. I am non-discriminatory and a diversity enhancing judge. I have been judging for 6 years in the Florida and National circuits, my alumni school is Apopka High School, and I was a former Speech and Debate kid myself.

Things that help me make a good decision towards the end are debate skills, proper use of evidence, flow of the argument, speech skills, and performance ability. I take notes about the outline of your speech, if it is easy to understand, are you going the extra mile to explain relevant information, or are you bogging the debate down with irrelevant subject matter. Think of your speech like an essay, topic, body, and summary. Having a conclusion towards the end of your speech shows you are prepared, have good time management skills, and can circle back around to tie in everything together at the end.

For my speech kids, I will take note on your use of body language, projection, pronunciation, delivery of the subject matter, etc. I try and take in individual's personal strengths and highlight on how you can improve other areas. What makes a great performance to me is not holding back, letting the emotion of your speech run through you, presenting it in an accurate manner, and for those that write their own speeches, writing skills and vocabulary.

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

I am a parent judge. I am very new to this type of judging, but I had judged somewhat similar events earlier. I would like the points to be stated clearly. Please be respectful to your competitor and try to understand their point of view. You are welcome to flow but don’t be too technical and too fast.

Overall, you can consider me as a lay judge.

Finally, just don’t forget that overall, you and your competitor are supposed to have fun and enjoying this whole experience. Let us make sure that it happens.

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

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate clear and articulate arguments and dislike spreading. Additionally, I am okay with fast, but not choking like speed, you know what I mean.

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.

I am looking for the best legislator, not just the best speaker.

This means participation in the round by asking relevant questions, showing leadership and demonstrating knowledge of the rules of order.

Additionally, I will be considering how well you organize your arguments, not just how well you present them in a speech. As you will see from the feedback I give, my priority when evaluating your speeches is content, not just delivery.

Speaking on every bill is not necessary to receive a good rank.

If you speak on a bill without adding anything new to the debate your score will reflect that.

Crystallization/Refutation speeches should also add to the debate by directly refuting the arguments of opposing speakers or adding new information to points that were brought up by previous speakers on your side. Speeches that just list other speakers and their arguments add nothing to the debate and will be scored accordingly.

All arguments should be factual and backed up with recent, credible sources.

Presiding Officers should be fair and impartial.

POs should also be fluent in the rules of order and move quickly and efficiently through procedures.

Lastly, and most importantly, decorum will be reflected in your rank. Treating other competitors with respect and following the rules of order are critical parts of being a good legislator and your score will be reflective of that.

A quick note about myself:

Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.

Congress:

-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.

- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.

- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.

- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.

- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!

- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.

- Be careful about tautological arguments.

- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.

LD, PF, & Policy:

If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.

Everyone:

- Have fun :)

- Be respectful, civil, and kind

- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!

Lay parent judge. Please speak very slowly and clearly and persuasively explain why you won in your last speech. Refrain from using debate and resolution terminology without explaining. No progressive arguments. I do not disclose my decision.