A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Speech:

Debate:

I have some competitive experience in lay debate, though not much. I'm the judge you'll definitely complain about if you're a tech-heavy debater. Spreading is definitely a no-go. I won't vote entirely on fluency because that's not how debate works, but if you're talking so fast I can't understand your case, I won't be able to tell if you're making better arguments. If it's possible, cut the debate jargon down as much as you can and focus on the meat of the argument. I will flow, so again, speak slowly so I have time to follow along and write.

Congress:

I did debate all 4 years of high school, I competed 3 years at State and 1 year at Nats in Policy. My main debate event was Policy debate, which I debated both circuit and lay. I also competed in Public Forum, LD, Parli, Big Questions, and Congress so I am pretty well versed in all debate formats. I am pretty well versed in theory but I do hold a preference to policymaker positions, although I am not opposed to a well argued kritique. Overall I am pretty tech over truth, but I do draw the line at overly aggressive and/or combative argumentation. While I do believe that debate is a game, I do not believe that debate trump's my morals as a person. So make sure to be respectful at all times or I will dock speaker points. I am mainly a flow judge so make sure to have clear signposting in order to make it easier for me to record argument rebuttals on the flow. I do not mind spreading as long as I am added to the email chain (trinitybergen@gmail.com). Overall I enjoy debate and I like to see people having fun with the activity.

I am a judge reasonably experienced at judging tournaments. I have 2 kids and both are in debate and speech each.

Here are few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at whatever pace you feel most comfortable. I can keep up with your pace.

2. I do take notes. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate the source citation. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking.

3. Engage with the round, have refutations and ask questions

4. Be respectful to everyone and have fun

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

About me: I competed successfully in LD and in Parli in high school in a fairly traditional league. I am now an assistant parli coach for El Cerrito High School. I use she/her/hers. Generally, I am familiar with pretty much all standard argumentation in both LD and Parli. I am also more or less familiar with other less traditional stuff in LD, although my direct experience with specific progressive debate maneuvers may vary. I am a flow judge, but you still need to explain why the points you win matter, rather than just telling me “flow x points to us and that’s more than our opponent so we win.” This paradigm is to tell you what I think about particular strategies/techniques, not to tell you how you should debate - that's up to you!

GENERAL:

Logistics: Speak clearly and fluently; I dislike spreading. I will say “slow” or “clear” a couple times if you are too fast; after that I will put down my pen if I just can’t flow. Avoid all ad hominem attacks and pejorative or derogatory language. In events with CX (LD), be aware of the gender and race dynamics in the room and be respectful of your opponent’s CX time. Signposting clearly will help me flow better, which can only benefit you. I will listen as long as you are speaking but I will not flow after about 10 seconds after the timer has gone off. In partnered events (Parli) you can communicate with your partner, but I will only flow what the speaker says. Respect everyone’s identity in the round; one way in which you should do this is to provide/ask for pronouns and use everyone’s pronouns as desired.

Flowing: I will understand if you say something like “extend our second contention subpoint A to us, which gives us all the impacts,” but I will be much more convinced if you explain why the extension/drop/turn/whatever matters, both in the context of the round and in the real world. Impacts are where you get the win normally, but you should still provide clear link chains to said impacts. Also, it helps if you contextualize why your impacts are bad/good. You should weigh in the rebuttal/final speech to show me that you understand why your arguments matter, and how they stack up against your opponents’.

Debate is for you, not for me, and I will judge the round you give me.

PARLI:

Plans: Give me a plan text and some advantages/contentions and we’re good. Ideally if the resolution has any unclear terms, the aff would define them and hold fast to those definitions in their plan.

Counterplans: Be sure to explain your CP’s exclusivity/competitiveness (I think your CP can be competitive without being strictly mutually exclusive). I am receptive to most arguments about a CP’s competitiveness/fairness. If you run a CP that’s reallllly close to the plan (PIC), I will consider aff arguments on fairness based on the neg leaving very little ground for the aff. For perms, I’m receptive to both the perm and to the defense of the CP. I will consider PICs and the response.

Theory: Ideally, theory should not overshadow the substance of the resolution being debated. That said, if the clash in the round ends up being primarily on theory, obviously I will consider it. Articulate a clear violation and clearly link it to its impact on the round. Theory to me is not a style of debate but a way to check back against unfairness in debate.

Kritiks: I consider Ks more of an LD/policy thing but I will consider them if I see them in Parli. See the Kritiks section in LD below.

Evidence: Don’t make stuff up and don’t use outrageous sources and we’re good.

POIs: Feel free to attempt as many times as you want, but it is ultimately up to the speaker’s discretion how many they choose to accept.

POOs: I will listen to the POO claim and defense.

LD:

General: Provide a framework, ideally with a value and a value criterion. Explain how you derive this framework from the resolution and link every contention/argument back to how it achieves your framework. If you cite philosophy in your framework, be sure you understand the work/author/concept.

Plans: LD is a moral debate. Therefore, I believe that any plan you run should be thoroughly linked to your framework, and your framework to the resolution. In other words, explain to me how your plan upholds the value/moral statement in the resolution.

CPs: I think these only make sense if a plan was run by the aff. Also, a CP doesn’t absolve you from needing to clarify what framework you are defending, whether that’s the same as your opponent’s or not. My other views on CPs are above in the Parli section of my paradigm.

Theory: see theory section in Parli above.

Kritiks: I understand Ks and will consider them. Ideally, a K would have a clear explicit link to the wording of the res/the plan so as to demonstrate that the aff has clearly done something worthy of kritiking. I don't think Ks are inherently bad or good, so feel free to engage with the K however you like.

Cards: I usually accept whatever cards or evidence you read and I won’t ask to see them. I don’t love arguments about sourcing/source quality unless the source has a blatant bias or you can clearly explain something about why your study provides a more accurate/relevant conclusion. If your opponent asks to see your card, please provide it for them. If you take a while to do so, I will be lenient with the end time of their prep.

I have coached Lincoln Douglass debate for 5 years. For me, excellent debaters are reasonable, efficient, articulate, logical, clear, audience focussed, fair, and adept at both offense and defense. Effective debaters provide a clear and direct weighing mechanism for why they are winning or have won the round, and they link back to the value criterion clearly and directly. I don't like fast debate. Debate in the real world for me as a human. I don't like tricks and manipulations. Debate your opponents' best arguments, represent them fairly, and use logic, analytics, and critical thinking to clash convincingly. Do the fundamentals well: good speaking skills, look to the audience, good sportspersonship, good clarity of enunciation, energy, posture, concrete framing, big picture framing, signposting, clash, clash, clash etc.

Policy Maker Paradigm

Stock Issues primary importance

Old-school approach

Rudeness is death

General:

- Pronouns: she/her

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations, please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

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.

Parli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

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

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

PF

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

Speech Requirements:

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

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

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

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

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

I do not want you to:

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

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

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

I'm a parent of an experienced debater. I've judged mostly congress for 6 years and some PF as well at fairly high levels.

Ask for my congress paradigm verbally before the round starts. It's pretty simple, I trust that most of you know what to do.

PF:

I am a lay judge. I want to see clearly established links and easy to follow arguments. I do not want to get lost in my flow trying to make sense of your argument. I will still evaluate an argument if I have to make some leaps of logic but I'm less likely to evaluate it to the strength that you intend. As for responses, I want both refutation and weighing. Just because a response exists, doesn't mean it is good enough to take out the argument. I need to buy that your response does what you say. I always want to see weighing, debate is a comparative activity. The side that wins is the side that is better, not the side that is right. For frontlines, I don't want a repetition of your argument, I've heard it already. I want to hear, very clearly, what your response to the refutation is, there's multiple speeches for a reason.

As for speaking, I'm not a huge fan of speed. I'd prefer if you slowed it down a little. Slightly faster conversational is what I prefer. I want fluid speaking for high speaker scores. A little variation always helps me follow a long. If you have any massive fluency meltdowns, unintentional pauses, or just get obviously stumped at any points during your speech I'll deduct speaker points heavily, and depending on how bad it is, it can cost you the round.

Lastly, I highly value adaptability in debate. If your opponent says something that has you completely lost, it's not a good look and it can cost you the round.

I value respect--not for me but for your fellow competitors. Be polite and professional.

It is fine to speak quickly, but make sure I still have time to process what you're saying. I'll do a modified version of a flow for debate events, so I need time to write and organize myself so I can give a valid decision.

I value concrete examples and sources. I prefer logos over pathos.

While I have my own political opinions, I do my best to keep those out of my judging. I know you may be assigned a side, and keep that in mind when listening to arguments.

I'm a debate parent (parliamentary debate, IX, and congress) and I'm always impressed by the competitors. I want you to do well, but I also know you value constructive criticism.

Content / Construction / Communication

Content - what did you say, how good were your sources, etc. 40%

Construction - how well did you piece together your speech 20%

Communication - how well did you deliver your speech 40%

Congress:

I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.

I wholeheartedly value speeches that embody the congressional debate sentiment: a focus on the American constituents who "elected" you to office. At the end of the day, that is who you represent. The best speeches are compelling, comprehensible, motivating, and delivered at a normal speaking pace (no spreading). I definitely don't mind a joke/pun or two. Speaking well, in a very compelling way, is just as important as what you are saying. Try not to read from your screen or notes too much.

For PO contests, speed and efficiency is key. The better PO is the one that successfully moves the round along with minimal hesitations, almost as if you don't even notice their presence.

World Schools Debate:

I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.

Public Forum:

Try not to spread, as Public Forum is intended to be accessible to the average non-debater. Additionally, make sure your arguments are presented in a compelling way; what you say is just as important as how you say it. For online tournaments, your arguments are communicated more effectively if you are not clearly reading from your screen for the entire speech. Try to look up at the audience every once and a while. I am also comfortable with nonconventional arguments (at least nonconventional for PF) as long as they are presented compellingly and have a clear tie-back to the topic at hand.

About me:

I participated in Congressional Debate and World School's Debate in high school, attending both CA State Finals and US Nationals. I am now an undergraduate student at Yale University.

Please use Credible Evidence and speak clearly and slowly. Use of logical deduction based reasoning will help achieve higher scores. Your talk should reflect the amount of research that has been put in for the prep and help you score higher.

JUDGE PARADIGM

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School, CA

Judging/Event Types: I've only judged Congress and I am a parent to two seasoned Congressional debaters.

How many years have you been judging?: 6 years

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?: Behave professionally and courteously, clear delivery, and breaking down arguments are essential.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?: No

How do you judge cross-examination? Ask thoughtful questions

My paradigm for congressional debate is quite simple:

I would appreciate if competitors do not spread or talk too fast: the goal of this event is to engage in insightful discussion surrounding the legislation but talking too fast often defeats this purpose.

Clash is important, but clash politely! I enjoy when debaters weigh the impacts of the opposing side with their own. However, I take into careful consideration how you carry yourself throughout the round. How you treat the PO, your fellow competitors, judges, and yourself will be a point that I look at when I cast my ballot. Please be respectful and polite because the kindness you treat your opponents with is more important that any award or trophy you can win. Especially in this online setting, you should be attentive during the round. Asking questions and taking notes lets me know that you are active and participating. With that being said, don't ask questions for the sake of raking up points on my ballot. I appreciate questions that genuinely have a purpose and move the debate forward.

Most importantly, I have no tolerance for any sort of racism, homophobia, sexism, or bigotry. I deem that unacceptable and I will not hesitate to dock you on my ballot.

Make sure to have fun and enjoy yourselves!!

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

I like to see good presence and pace from in your speeches. I look for data used to support your case and also impact information to support your speech. Paint me a picture to help motivate to think. I enjoy a good opening but make it connect to your speech and look for a good summary.

I have been in speech and debate for a while and do not have a specific paradigm for debate, other than speed. I understand the need to speak a little faster to get all the information in, but I really do not like spreading. If the goal of debate is education, I do not think spreading is an ethical practice, and to me, it deters the point of educational debate and wanting the audience to learn from it. If you really want to/feel the need to spread, by all means, go for it, but please be aware that this will more than likely affect speaks and my ability to extend arguments on the flow. Other than that, I don't have a specific paradigm, but here are some small reminders:

1. Please make the link between claims and impacts very clear! Please do not assume that I will just "know" how your claim causes the impact.

2. While I will do my best not to let my own thoughts interfere with the round itself, please also remember that I am an individual person with my own thoughts and that I will not buy everything you say unless you back it up.

3. I will extend the impacts of saving lives over economic impacts unless there is a significant reason why economic impacts should come before saving lives.

4. Do your best not to be rude to your opponents, as it takes a lot of energy and resources to attend tournaments, and the last thing we want is for someone to be rude to us at 6 in the morning when we are doing our best to compete. This isn't something I would necessarily give a loss to, but it will be something I look out for and may affect speaks.

Have fun debating! If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the start of the round.

For Congressional Debate:

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

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

My name is WK (they/them).

I have 10 years of competitive and coaching experience. I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been teaching full time since finishing undergrad in 2020. Currently, I teach debate to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress if I am not tabbing, so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

PUBLIC FORUM

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Yes, please put me on the email chain (wkay@berkeleycarroll.org)

Speed: speed is mostly fine (I'm pretty comfy up to like 300 wpm) but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down (usually your enunciation is the problem and not the speed). 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest since I am coaching every topic and judging most of the time. That said, it's your job to indict ev if it's bad or else I'm not gonna count it against the person who reads it (though I'll probably note it in RFD/comments and reflect it in speaker points). Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), and just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). If your evidence sounds suspicious/questionable, I will make note of that in comments/RFD/speaks, but won't drop you unless it's indicted. I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Obviously, if you think evidence is clipped or totally bogus, that's a different story by the rules. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Framework first, it's gonna decide how I evaluate the flow. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why I should prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD and will just off of whatever weighing mechanisms are given in-round. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot. If nobody reads framework, give me clear weighing mechanisms in rebuttal and summary, don't make me intervene.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in second rebuttal. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self-kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points.

Summary: 1st Summary needs to frontline just like second rebuttal. Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based on it. I like it when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a real strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). Suppose I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's: in that case, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: a reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can when you need to. The Final Focus should then respond to anything new in summary (hopefully not too much) and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally go by this: “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: I’m super open to it (BESIDES TRICKS)! I’m relatively new to coaching this sort of material, but feel confident evaluating it. Topical link would be sick on a K but if not, make sure your link/violation is suuuuuper clear or else you’re in hot water. Make sure you’re extending ROB and the alt(s) in every speech after you read the K, or else it’s a non-starter for my ballot. I’m most excited about (and most confident evaluating) identity-based Ks and those that critique debate as an institution (e.g. as an extension/branch of the colonial project). On theory, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and almost certainly breaking rules tbh, and so am very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a disclosure round I judged in 2023), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good of a shell you read. Relatedly: I don't necessarily need theory to be in shell format, but it does making flowing easier. Moving on: I don’t love disclosure theory only because I’ve gotten real bored of it and don’t think it makes for good rounds. That said, if you’re all about disclo and that’s your best stuff, I’ll evaluate it. On a different but related note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." If you're not sure about what I might think about the Prog you wanna run, feel free to ask me before the round. In short, as long as it is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your violations are real and/or impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. And, to be clear, DON’T READ TRICKS IN FRONT OF ME.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

CONGRESS

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school when judging this event insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course I want the good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies) and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chains, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a real strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright-line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turning to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when I judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. See the Equity statement at the top.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim,

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

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

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

Thank you.

Email: notwyattlayland@gmail.com

Background

University of Reno, Nevada 2023
He/Him/His

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. On GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.

I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.

That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.

I am a parent judge. who has judged few tournaments in the past. I appreciate well-spoken and confident debaters who can articulate their arguments well. Please be friendly and respectful to your opponent. Absolutely no spreading.

I have never done debate competitively in High School but have extensive experience in collegiate debate. I have become more familiar with types of debate apparently exclusive to high school and am slowly learning, especially relearning decorum during quarantine.

I judge based on the strength of argumentation as it pertains to points that have the most impact on the root of the motion that is being debated. I will not award a debater for listing X more points than another senator if they cannot thoroughly explain the importance of these points. Put simply, Quality over quantity.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

I am looking for a good understanding of the matter at issue and content that promotes healthy debate. I value well-structured and cogent arguments with relevant evidence. I prefer quality over quantity! So please lean towards clarity of delivery rather than the number of words you can get out. I am a lay judge, so if your content is not clear to me you will hurt your ranking. Feel free to do a roadmap for me (off time if allowed in the event rules).

Claim uniqueness is important and entering new evidence and unique perspectives always make for a more interesting debate, and scores points with me. How well you defend your arguments or how relevant and incisive your questions/refutations are will rank you higher in my book.

Overall, I am looking for erudite content as well as an effective speaking style. The speakers with an optimal combination of both will get the highest ranks in my judging.

Hello,

About Me: I am currently a policy debater for CSU Long Beach and primarily run K focusing on Afro-Pess, Anti-Blackness, and Security. I've judged quite a bit this year, but in terms of policy, I have more experience competing than judging.

My paradigm will be from the perspective of policy and may be geared as such.

What is Debate?

Debate is whatever you want it to be. I believe most arguments have some place in debate and as long as you are able to clearly and effectively defend your argument of what debate is, I'm down for it.

I pay close attention to the language used in the round to defend points, I also love a good CX so that usually goes on my flows.

What you say in round, you must defend!

T:

I like a good T debate, but I am more familiar with the college topic than HS, so make sure you can clearly show me how it isn't topical. I do believe that the burden falls more upon the Neg to show how it does violate the topic, but doesn't mean the aff can go without addressing the argument.

CP:

CP must be able to solve some part of case as well as answer/address some part of the issues or advantages of the plan. Perm also is fine, but the neg must clearly explain to me how a perm could not work. It will definitely help if your evidence is specific to the aff.

DA:

I can get behind a well made DA and that you are able to have uniqueness as well as a good cp. Overall I just need a clear impact and link to how the case perpetuates the disad. Impact comparison and framing is also key to convince me.

K:

As stated I am primarily a K debater, so I may have a slight bias towards these. This does not mean I will automatically vote for the K though, especially if they cannot properly link their K to the case or explain how their impacts outweigh. Just because I run this does not mean I will fill in anything missed in the debate, it is your duty to do so. This also must be explained to me how it can materially make sense. If your neg make sure you are able to explain how your impacts are weighed and make sure your engaging with the aff as close as possible. If your aff, please have a perm. Please be able to contextualize your thesis in the level of the K. Aff also must remember that they have a plan and that they cant get lost in the K.

FW:

I can get behind a good FW argument, however be sure that there is a clear impact and how it must be weighed. I feel that there is a space for FW to be ran and that neg can make this arg, however this does not mean you will get an automatic vote on it. I also believe the aff should be able to defend their content and their idea of what debate is.

Ballot:

Tell me what my role is as the judge, tell me what arguments your winning and why they are important. Explain to me clearly what the primary clash is of the debate and how this weighs.

Speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with, I won't directly link your speed with speaker points. For me its about how you explain your arguments and how you can persuade me to vote for you.

Big Things:

I do not abide Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, etc. rhetoric used against people in round!

Small Things:

- I will flow on Paper (mostly).

- Be clear on any OV, Plan Texts, Interps., and Analytics.

- (Online Debate) Cameras on for people who are speaking please.

Always:

Have Fun! We are all likely here because we have some enjoyment of this activity and see it as an arena where people can advocate for their agencies and bring their passions out into a public, educational space.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them. Tell me your story.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2023? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

Complex or radical theory will allways be favored. The more unique the argument, the more creative the stance, the higher the rank. Now this must be still logical and based in reality, but if you can effectively argue it and prove it, you will be greatly rewarded on the ballot. Debate without risk and creativity is pointless.

First person to mention the Capitol gets +1 speaker points.

Anyone to mention any grammatical error in the past two paragraphs will receive +1 speaker points

Hi everyone! My name's Tiffany and I'm currently a freshman at NYU Stern. I debated in Congressional Debate at Harker for three years and am now back as an assistant coach. Here are a few things I look for the most when deciding my ranks:

1. Clarity and relevance. First and foremost, I need to be able to follow the structure of your speech, understand your arguments, and identify your warrants and impacts with relative ease. Use specific signal words to help with this. This requires both strong argumentation/framing and effective speaking. After meeting this bare minimum, I'm looking for relevance. If you're giving an early round speech, the most relevant arguments are the apparent ones that shed light on the core controversies of the debate. Past that, the best way to make your speech relevant is to directly contextualize it by refuting, mentioning other speakers, or collapsing arguments. After the sponsorship, I'm looking for at least one mention of other speakers in the round. If you're giving a mid-cycle speech, it's not enough to pull out what might have been a super good and unique contention if you don't frame it as a response to the arguments already brought up in the debate OR weigh your impacts against others. By the time late-cycle speeches come around, in order to stay relevant, you have to ensure you're breaking down the debate into a few key points of contention and comparing both sides on these key points. You should always be asking yourself one fundamental question: am I helping my judge assess whether my speech is BETTER than other speeches in the round rather than just am I helping my judge assess whether my speech is GOOD. A good isolated speech does not always guarantee a good speech in a congressional debate round.

2. Speaking persuasively. I will always decide ranks primarily on my first point, especially because clarity and relevance inevitably requires some degree of effective speaking. However, if there are multiple people speaking at around the same level of clarity and relevance, I will turn towards persuasiveness to decide my ranks. For me, effective persuasion always includes conveying genuine concern and a sense of urgency. Conveying genuine concern can be done through utilizing rhetoric and speaking slowly while conveying a sense of urgency often requires momentum-building throughout your speech through varying your speed, volume, and intonation.

3. A few other things to keep in mind.

a) On an online platform, don't read off your screen. Extra points for having a setup and giving your speech standing with a legal pad the traditional way.

b) Provide solid evidence. When in doubt, use evidence.

c) Speak at different points in the debate. For example, if your first speech is a constructive, make sure your second speech is a rebuttal of some sort.

On a final note, please be respectful, kind, and easy to work with at all times. It really does come through in round if you are non-cooperative and dismissive of others, so just make sure to maintain decorum both in and outside of rounds. Debate is honestly a great way to better yourself as an individual and meet some great people along the way, utilize that! Looking forward to being your judge and hope this helps!