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

Biography:

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

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

Congressional Debate:

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

As far as the information you are probably worried about:

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

A note on being the Presiding Officer:

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

Public Forum:

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas and Policy

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

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

Best of Luck!

Sincerely,

Amrit Ammanamanchi

NOTE: My guess is you are probably reading this as you have seen that I am one of the judges in your round and scrambling to see what I do and do not like, so I will give you the basics and if you are interested in learning more, feel free to read more below.

1. Do not spread. It changes the purpose of having a meaningful debate into a data dumping contest.
2. Make sure you cite dates and sources and tell me how that data is relevant and impactful.
3. Run theory arguments at your own risk. I am generally not a fan of them as they usually cheapen the debate.
4. "Resolutions are not enforceable" arguments tell me that you have nothing else to say but boilerplate neg arguments.
5. Yelling at competitors during rounds (even in questioning), ad hominem attacks, and general disrespect shown will be penalized. We are here to learn and have fun, not put each other down.

Bio:

Hello! I am Nickolas Bartel and am a Master of Public Policy & Management Student at Carnegie Mellon University. I have sat on panels involving AI and election interference and currently am working with the City of Pittsburgh on shifting their public fleet to renewable fuels. I graduated from my undergraduate studies at Washington & Jefferson College triple majoring in Political Science, Environmental Studies, and Spanish with a minor in Latin American Science. I've conducted national research on how views on climate change impact their U.S. energy portfolio preferences, influencing factors behind those who do not support climate policy, influences on youth voting globally, and factors impacting Costa Rican environmentalism that I conducted during my semester abroad.

As a debater, I started up the North Hills High School debate team back in 2017 and then went on to place top 3 at the Pennsylvania State Tournament twice consecutively and then attended NSDA Nationals those same years all in Congressional Debate. I evaluate the chamber based on the quality of the speech, participation in the chamber, and the number of speeches.

Quality of Speeches:

As with all events, the ability to speak and speak well is the most important element of any event. In regards to quality of speech, I base it off solely what is found on the NSDA Congressional Debate Rubric. I will also be taking into consideration of sources, the addition of new/unique arguments, the extension/refuting/or deepening of previous arguments, and proper usage of parliamentary procedure. A good speech is one that tells me why I should care and provides facts to back it up. Data dumps and spreading, while very important to events such as Public Forum or Policy, in Student Congress, they are not as persuasive. Occasional "umm" and "uhhs" while not significant for ranking will be noted on competitor's comments.

Furthermore, "Joke speeches" will result in a severe deduction of points due to the lack of progression it brings to the debate in the chamber and violation of the decorum of the chamber. Inappropriate language, ad hominem attacks against another competitor or any discriminatory language will be a deduction in points as per NSDA rules. While being good at speaking is important, good speaking ability without material behind it is a weaker speech overall.

On authorship and first pro speeches, please make sure that you address why this legislation, in particular, is a good idea and a solution to the harm of the status quo and not just launching into general pro points. Also, for the benefit of myself and other judges who have not done extensive research on the bill, please make sure that you include some background of the bill. While the first speech is important for establishing recency, it is also setting the mood, pace, and attitude of the debate.

Participation in Chamber:

I look for not only participation in giving speeches but also in questioning. While favorable questions are nice to ask for both parties, please limit your use of them as the point of questioning is to see how well the competitor can respond to the other side. Also, yelling during questioning is not productive to debate and will be docked from the competitor's ranking score. Having been in Congress myself, I understand that the debate can get passionate but all competitors must please keep in mind that everyone must maintain respect for your fellow competitors during the entire tournament both in and out of the chamber.

Furthermore, please pay attention to the speaker when they are giving their speech. I do not want to see people playing on any electronic device. While some state rules allow for the usage of technology in the room, please do not abuse this privilege of misusing it. Failure to do so will be a reduction in your overall ranking.

Number of Speeches:

While giving speeches is an important part of Student Congress, I will be using this as one of the last elements of consideration for those with unbreakable ties in the other categories.

Presiding Officer Ranking:

While typically overlooked by the judges, Presiding Officers are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. However, I will be taking the risk that the competitor takes by being the Presiding Officer into account. Presiding Officers who closely follow Parliamentary Procedure and have a good pace with few or no errors are very likely to be ranked.

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

High School Debate is a competition and a chance to prepare you for the real world at the same time. There is a high chance in real life that you will have a job that will require you to argue, defend, find, and propose solutions for many of the real problems we have in life. Whether you are an aspiring doctor, scientist, lawyer, businessman, CEO, IT computer scientist, plumber, carpenter, mechanic, engineer, politician, etc. skills you learn in debate prepare you for the vast majority of jobs in the real world. Public Speaking, teamwork, and problem-solving skills greatly improve while doing high school debate. Many of the most successful people who have ever walked this earth did debate at some point in their lifetime. That said, debate is an opportunity to learn and grow, and that you may not get it right the first time, but the important thing is to keep learning and being civil to one another!

For all congress rounds, I look for overall content, argumentation/refutation, and delivery. To go over the fundamentals of strong content and argumentation, I want to see your claim, warrant, and impact for each argument you make! Your claim should be clear and concise, and your warrants need to explain WHY and HOW your claims and data are true. For example, there is a difference between saying Drinking water is important, and Drinking water is important because according to (a source), you can’t survive more than 4 days without water. Finally, your impacts need to explain why does this matter? This is where you get to explain how this saves money and/or lives and connects it with the constituents that you are representing in the congress. This is where quantification with specific numbers and impact calculus (scope, magnitude, probability, and timeframe) become important for your fellow representative to be more bought in on your claims! How effectively you explain your impacts can make or break your speech! Always, always, always make sure to have all 3 components! If you forget one or more of them, then your speech will have quite a bit of holes in it for others to attack you!

To emphasize the importance of refutation, I look for how you interact with the congress under the present circumstances and your arguments overall. If you are not the author, sponsor, or first neg, I expect you to at least address the content already brought up and/or refute one or more of your fellow representatives. REFUTATION IS ESSENTIAL!!!! You need to have it! Without it, this isn't debate! Refutation also indicates that you are being an active listener and just makes your speech stronger by at least connecting your arguments with those already presented in the round!

Overall speech adaptation and round awareness are very important for this event. For each piece of legislation, you are essentially working as a collective group on your side to explain why your side is the side we should all pick! I am a firm believer that where you speak in the round must be well adapted to where we are in the debate! For every bill, the first 2 speeches (Authorship/Sponsorship, and 1st NEG) need to set the stage well, explain ambiguous terms, and contextualize with historical or current events! Then, the next 6-12 speeches need to be adding NEW content to the debate and back-and-forth REFUTATION! Finally, once numerous arguments and speeches have been given, your speech should be based almost entirely on refutation and should be crystalizing/consolidating arguments already brought up to convince your fellow representatives to choose your side unless you have something NEW and substantial to bring up! On this note, please avoid rehash at all costs! Rehash does nothing for a round and just wastes everyone’s time! Rehash either indicates a lack of awareness of what is going on in the round, or the unwillingness to adapt your speech to the appropriate stage in the debate!

For delivery, I would like to see eye contact, fluency, and poise throughout the speech. Being able to talk without depending on a word-for-word paper is the biggest key to mastering delivery! Practicing and learning to give speeches with simple notes and not scripts will help you in the long run. Congress and Debate in general are supposed to be dynamic events as opposed to static events. It's okay if you are one of the first 2 speakers on a bill, but after that, it’s important to be able to adapt as the round goes on and speak on the fly with simple notes and not word-for-word papers. This will also help you immensely with refutation in your speeches! To use a sports analogy, your first few plays can be scripted, but after that, you need to pull out your playbook and adjust to what the other team is throwing at you, and if you just stick to your set of pre-determined strategies no matter what, you likely will not succeed.

If you do all or most of these things mentioned above, your speech will score very high and it's a great way to ensure you have high-quality speeches! I look for overall quality over quantity! 2 home run speeches are better than 5 mediocre/bad ones! Giving the most speeches does not necessarily give you the win, and not being able to speak on a bill is not going to set you back! It’s always better to choose your spots wisely to speak. In Congress, you have a very finite amount of opportunities to speak! Therefore, it’s always better to put your best speeches on display if you can, and not waste those opportunities on sub-par speeches, but of course, some speech is better than no speech. The big picture is to just be aware of what you have prepared and be strategic when you speak. If you know that you don’t have a good speech on this bill, but you know you will for the next one, it’s wise to give your best one in that case, and know how to make that speech better next time! While it’s not the end of the world if you cannot speak on every piece of legislation due to certain circumstances, try to give a speech for the vast majority of legislation available. If you can’t speak on a bill for some reason, you can always participate in questioning to show that you are still involved in the round!

My Scoring Rubric: (Out of a 6 point NSDA rubric)

6 - Great Argumentation, Evidence, Sources, and Impacts. Well Developed-Refutation. Speech was well structured as a whole and mostly delivered without the use of a word-for-word paper. Points were original with no rehashed arguments. You used the 3 minutes well, and the speech made a great contribution to the round. Responses to questions were very prepared and professional. Also, the speech was well adapted to the appropriate stage in the debate. (This score is not easy to get, If you get one from me, you should feel very proud and expect a very good rank on your ballot).

5 - Argumentation was solid with evidence and impacts. Refutation was included and made a positive contribution to the debate. Speech was delivered solidly with minimal lapses and made an effort to make eye contact with your fellow representatives. There may be a small area or two of improvement needed in your speech that will likely earn you a 6 next time. Overall, this is a very great score and a couple of pieces of improvement will be scoring you at a 6 in no time.

4 - Speech may be missing a couple of key components such as sources, impacts, or refutation. Argumentation could be smoothed out a bit with more structure. Speech had some good components to be proud of. Speech is going in the right direction. Integrate my feedback and you should be scoring much higher in the future. Overall, this score means that you did some things well and have some improvement to do at the same time.

3 - Normally the bare minimum I give. Speech is missing a few key components. Speech may be too short, not developed enough. Argumentation may need some specific improvement. Rehash and dependence on a pre-written script may be present. Speech structure and development may be needed. Speaker may need to be more prepared to respond to questions next time.

2 - Speech had no purpose. Speaker was off-topic and made no contribution to the round. Speech may have no evidence and impacts and was just a few sparse sentences. This score normally is not given unless the speech was very sparse.

1 - Speech was given on the wrong side or speech was under a minute with no substantial information brought up. This score will also be automatically given if your speech was rude or offensive or even trying to offend another student. Any major rude or offensive behavior will result in a warning and be reported to your coach and you will not be ranked on my ballot for that tournament. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER!

As parliamentarian, I will look for overall decorum, parliamentary etiquette, and adherence to Robert's Rules of Order! This means taking initiative by making motions when appropriate, addressing the chamber if something is not right, and functioning as a coherent house and not just for your self-interest. Also, being attentive to the round (Taking Notes and Researching is fine) and not being a distraction in the round also factored in when evaluating overall decorum.

Also, it's your job to make motions and understand where we are in the parliamentary procedure! The PO should not have to remind you to make motions! Understanding parliamentary procedure and the order of proper motions is key to making the congress sessions very efficient! Although decorum and etiquette are not reflected in the points you earn, they can be used to help determine and nuance your final rank at the end of the session.

A note about POs

Presiding Officers have a crucially important job in each session. One could argue, the Presiding Officer is the most important student in the round because of how procedural-based Congress Debate is. Because of this, I am more than willing to rank POs anywhere on my ballot. However, PO rankings are not an entitlement by mere virtue of being the PO. I evaluate POs on how they handle Robert’s Rules of Order throughout the round as well as parliamentary procedure and should run an efficient congress. As a PO, you were chosen by your fellow representatives for a reason and you owe it to them to run an efficient congress before them. For varsity rounds in particular, make sure to practice and really know the parliamentary procedure before deciding to be PO. Ideally, the PO should be able to run the entire session with little to no help from any of the judges. This means reminding the chamber if something is wrong! It’s ok if you screw up once or twice, but overall make sure you know what you are doing! Practicing before you do it in a session of Congress is the biggest key to performing the best during a round!

Have Fun! I want to see you all succeed! Best wishes!

Please ask me before a round if you have any questions!

Congress

I love a good speaking style but the number one emphasis must be solid arguments. Speaking loudly and with energy is awesome but it isn’t a good substitute for making unique logical arguments.

Sources

Use professional sources. I typically like to hear their qualifications (professor at Harvard, etc.), and year. I would make sure you have your sources accessible in case a debater challenges your sources. When someone challenges your sources, and you have them available to support your claim, it makes you look really prepared. At the same time, if you end up using the same source for several points throughout your case, please mention that you're still using the same source, because otherwise, I will assume that later point simply didn't have a source associated with it at all.

Refutation

Refute your opponents. If you aren’t refuting, you aren’t really debating anything. This is a debate event, not a speech event. The further and further the debate on a bill goes on, the more and more refutation I would like to hear. by the 12th speech, I really don't want to hear any points that aren't at least in some way associated with a prior speaker. You should be able to do this by taking notes of the opposing arguments and researching or pointing out flaws. Directly refuting specific points of other representatives respectfully can be done by saying something along the lines of “Representative Smith, when you claim ____, understand _____.” The more you mention other speakers, the more clear it is that you really understood and paid attention to the round.

Rehash

Make sure your points are original. Hearing the same points over and over again by different speakers doesn't add anything to the debate, it just drags it on. If you can't come up with anything new, then you should refute what's been said. If everything seems to have already been refuted, it's probably time to move the previous question.

Presentation

Try not to read off directly from your notes or laptop. Having notes is great but make sure you're not just reading them off word by word in a Congress event. This can be difficult to do in the beginning but if you practice your confidence in this will improve.

Professionalism

Show professionalism. This means avoiding slang, slouching, talking during other speeches, or any type of manner that could be perceived as rude to your peers. Remember that this is a mock Congress so you should be acting as an elected Representative.

Quality > Quantity

While I appreciate being active in the debate, giving the most speeches isn't going to necessarily make you rank the best. Quality is over quantity when it comes to giving speeches just to give speeches. That being said if you have a great speech for every bill, that's really awesome. Just make sure you aren't wasting time in the debate with half-effort speeches. There’s no specific number of speeches I’m necessarily looking for in a tournament. Your questions themselves do not get ranked however actively asking questions does show you are participating in the debate and that you care which is very good to see.

Respect

Treat all of your peers with respect. This should be self-explanatory.

Scoring

On Tab, I’ll list what you can do to improve.

6 - Exceptional Speech. I don’t give out lots of these so if you did this you were great. Great arguments, great refutation, great sources, great presentation, great professionalism, and great time.

5 - Great Speech. There was likely a bit to improve, but overall this is something to be proud of.

4 - Above Average Speech. Good work, look at my tips and you’ll be placing in no time.

3 - Decent Speech. You got the hang of it, check to see what you can improve

2 - Alright Speech. You have a good bit of room for improvement.

1 - Something’s not quite right. There’s some work to do.

Overall, if you’re scoring on the lower side, it’s not a reason to feel bad. Look at the advice your judges give you, practice, and you will improve. If your judges are ranking you lower it’s not because they don’t like you or are trying to be mean, but they want you to succeed. If they tell you it was an awesome speech when in reality it needs some work, it’s not going to help you grow as a debater and ultimately that’s the goal of giving feedback.

Have fun

If you mess up, don’t worry about it, just keep doing your best.

Public Forum

Public Forum: I make my decisions based on the presentation and content of the round.

1. Be a funnel! Be an *effective* funnel. Take stock after each round of what the most important arguments were. Slowly narrow the debate to one or two issues that I should vote on. And then convince me that you won the debate. Don't speed through six arguments in your final focus and expect me to give them all weight and attention.

2. Don't drop arguments. If you want to pull it through the round - mention it in every speech.

3. PF is a layperson event! Sell your arguments to the average person. PF is a practice in persuasion.

4. Understand your case. Make sure I understand your case. This includes speaking at a pace that allows me to flow your arguments. If it doesn't make it on to my flow - I am not voting on it.

5. Be thorough with your evidence. It will not hold weight in the round if you do not tell me who said it and when they said it.

6. Act professionally. This is great practice for the "real world". Be courteous.

Congress:

1. Make sure your speeches are applicable to the language of the bill/resolution! I want you to touch on the actual impact of the legislation in each speech! The underlying social issues matter but the actual text of the legislation matters more.

2. I want to see actual debate! Speeches that feel like an island will get lower scores. Interact with the speeches of your peers. Don't just reference their arguments, debate them. The more clash the better!

3. I look for generally active participation! If you give a speech or two but don't engage in questioning that will impact your overall rank.

4. Be very cautious of your language when speaking about disenfranchised populations. Be respectful, use person first language, don't tokenize diverse identities for emotional appeal, etc. (Some examples from this season: No person is illegal. People with disabilities are capable humans. People who are incarcerated still deserve human rights.)

5. Lastly, have fun with it and be conversational! The most persuasive speakers are those that don't read from their screen.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

I'm a second-year judge (graduated Millard South in 2022) and did congress for all four years of high school; As such I judge Congress primarily but have been getting experience with PF.

I believe that your goal during a debate is to present your position in the best light possible, so I'll be looking at whether your arguments are good advocacy for your overall contentions as well as if they're properly substantiated.

Properly cited evidence from reputable sources is key, and each time I hear an empirically falsifiable claim I'd like to hear some type of data to go along with it. The way I see it, anecdotes do have a place in debates, but never as a substitution for proper evidence. An anecdote can't be used to demonstrate how often something happens, but it could be used as a powerful example for how something may happen. Always tie your sources into your impacts and try to use data responsibly within its proper context.

Tone and presentation are also important, because they play a big role in how you're perceived. Sounding confident or being hard to rattle during questioning are always good skills to refine, but I'm aware that some debaters (myself included) do the sport in order to build the presentation skills and confidence that they don't already have, so I won't be judging very harshly on this (especially for novices). As a bare minimum, just make sure that you're audible and that your presentation doesn't detract too much from your ability to argue.

Clash is very important. Come prepared to overhaul some or all of your speech in response to the speeches given by your opponents.

Be kind to your fellow debaters. Your competitors aren't your enemies and there is no reason to be disrespectful, discriminatory, or bigoted. If a speech has abusive or inappropriate behavior (racism, sexism, transphobia, or disproportionate hostility), I will not score that speech very highly. This standard is consistent with my standards for effective advocacy.

For Congress: Be genuine with your contentions and your votes. If somebody makes an amendment that would fix one of your negation arguments, you should be voting for that amendment even though it would suck for your speech for it to be passed. Because it IS noticeable if somebody points out a flaw with a bill, an amendment is presented to solve that flaw, and that same person contributes to the failure of that amendment.

Updated for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't and ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

1. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
2. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

3. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

4. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

General Overview:

***If you are running any sensitive arguments, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.***

Did PF & Congress for 2 years; qualified for gold toc my only varsity year. Millard North HS (22') did a year of NFA-LD.

Currently doing political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

He/Him/His

be respectful, please. We are an inclusive space.

Please make an effective way of sharing evidence if called for. I want speech docs for constructive.

Add me to the email chain: arnavrishi7@gmail.com ( I want the speeches in the email chain) Makea speechdrop

Email me if you want an extended RFD or any questions in General.

Vote Squo on presumption if the round is a wash. (hope it does not resort to that)

Auto drop for being homophobic/racist/sexist/queerphobic.

- FRAME THE ROUND!!!! I don't want to decide which impact I like more

- Tech > Truth. I'm Tabula Rasa but my BS detector is pretty good too.

- If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech

- No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you

- I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.

- I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation

- Technical genius will be rewarded with speaker points. Example: Non-uniqueing your argument if it's turned so you can kick it

- Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.

- Speed is fine but clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.

Public Forum: I am a typical Flow Judge and have topic knowledge. Please do not think I will make a decision based on my knowledge.

I am good with flex prep, if you guys want to skip cross for like an extra minute of prep is also fine.

NO Debate math in all forms.

I will not make args for you, so tell me where to vote.

ways to get my ballot:

1. Extensions

2. Link chains

3. Impacts

4. Uniqueness debate

Progressive stuff

• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in the second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small school warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to
• extend the interp, vio,and standards through all speeches
• theory shells are valid so as they are not dumb or meme cases. I will need *very* clear warranting on this though. I believe in Disclosure, This is not an excuse to run it as a path to the ballot in abusive manners.

Going on to weighing..... I do not want to hear extend so and so card name. I want you to develop the card itself. And do not use buzzwords like "scope" or "magnitude" if you do not know how to use them.

Onto evidence ethics, I do not want to see improperly cut cards and wrong claims a particular card is making. If it is brought up as a voter,It will affect my decision by voting you down. Cut cards properly. please do not power tag. it is no fun.

Be nice to each other during Cross, I understand it can get heated but honestly, you don't get anything out of being a jerk.

I will not be flowing cross, but I will be listening just in case it is brought up during speeches.

If a card seems too good to be true; I may call for the card. Usually, I wouldn't

On to Summary and Final Focus;

Please Signpost as much as you can. Please collapse!!!!

I will not evaluate any new evidence or args brought up in the final focus.

Please tell me where and how I should vote. Remember I will not decide for you.

+0.5 if you disclosed. (hmu before the round!!!)

+0.3 if you started the email chain/speechdrop

Good Debating <3.

Congress:

FLUENCY: Ok so I want you to be fluent and have respect during the course of the round. I would want you to be specific in your args and how you present them to the chamber matters a lot.

Questioning: So, I will be listening to the questions asked and how you respond to them. Be tactful and wary of how you respond. Your answers are essentially an extension of your speech. Treat your answers like that.

Rehash: Your rankings and speaks will be low if you just repeat what your peers have brought to the table. I am a firm believer in that every speech in congress should be meaningful and have something unique. It is a bonus if you restate the point but make it a refutation or make your position stronger.

IMPACT: The impact of your arguments should be clearly stated. If you don't state the impact of your argument, your claim and warrant will be considered filler speech.

CLASH: Clash is an essential part of the round. It should be a large part of your speeches, not counting the authorship or first negative. It should also be evident in the questions that you ask.

Good Debating. <3

I am a parent of a competitor who has been involved in both speech and debate for the past 9 years and have been a judge for all types of events on multiple levels and circuits. I have seen it all, and neither appreciate excessive pandering to us judges nor losing sight of who your audience is, especially in your speeches. Shaking my hand after the round, while appreciated, will ultimately not impact my scoring, just as trying to make me laugh with a reference I don't understand will not help your chances (depending on the event). I always look to judge a round with utmost fairness and recognize the most deserving and prepared competitors for their hard work. I wish the best of luck to each of you and an enriching learning experience.

Debated at LaPorte High School on the Indiana Circuit

Debated primarily Congress in the past

I value civil and clear clash in both cross examination and speeches.

I appreciate short, clear, and concise link chains with real data.

Evidence outweighs analysis.

I do not like multipart questions as it takes away from the ability of other debaters to ask questions