If you're a student participating to S&D i'm extremely proud of you. This might be a competitive activity with winners and loosers, but being there today make you all winners to me <3

what i'm especially looking for in congress:

• make your speech living and dynamic: keep a voice loud and clear, keep eye contact (no mumbling looking down, no "reading" if possible...)
• use argument that are specific to the bill, don't loose yourself in discussing the general context, focus on the bill itself and why it's good/bad.
• prefer quality over quantity. Better speak less but with every word impactful. the more you speak the more you risk to dilute your key arguments.
• don't forget this is a debate, not a speech contest: you have to react to others participants argument, answer their points, bring new perspectives and topics if possible. Once the first speaker is done, you cannot just read a pre-written speech as if you were the first one to talk.

good luck with your speeches and congratulations for joining today!

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

Congress

I'm a relatively traditional judge. Remember that you are giving a speech and not reading an expository essay, so state clearly why you support or oppose the legislation on the table. I will judge substance primarily, but style does matter in the US Congress and, by extension, in a simulated one. The evidence you present should be valid and timely in nature as well as sourced appropriately. Most sources contain bias of some sort, but avoid citing McDonalds when you're arguing about the health benefits of cheeseburgers. Argue the substance and merits of the bill rather than technicalities, for instance an imprecise statistic in a bill is not a primary cause for negation. Spreading during a congressional debate is never effective. Both practical and moral/ethical arguments are appropriate.

After the initial speeches lay out arguments for and against the bill, effective speakers should make an effort to reference other speakers and reject or support their arguments in addition to bringing up new or more compelling ones where the opportunity exists. Prepared speeches are appropriate but the best speakers will be able to aggregate previous conversations and address them with their time on the floor. A speech with some verbal miscues that is relevant to the conversation happening in the session is better than a perfectly delivered canned speech prepared fully in advance. Questioning can be direct and even combative at times, but both questioner and respondent should seek to engage on substantive issues and, of course, with appropriate decorum.

The most effective congressional speakers are able to control the primary arguments being debated on the floor throughout the session. A representative who controls the message even when they are not speaking will receive additional consideration.

Judging Style: Stock Issues

A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Decision Making: Based on coherence of evidence, addressing of opponents argument in rebuttal/cross examination.

*Any/all criterion/values that are not addressed will flow through the round and influence decision.

Speaking Style Preference: None, can follow any pace/diction.