Overall (and TLDR)

I reward speakers who explain why their arguments are true as well as prove that they are true. This means a good argument includes plenty of warranting behind it, solid evidence to prove it, and proper analysis to link it together. I believe that every speaker has a unique role depending on how early or late the round is, and I will rank the speakers that do the best job of fulfilling their roles (i.e., don’t give a constructive as the last speech of the round). Finally, make sure that your speaking is engaging and passionate. In order to convince me that I should care about what you're saying, you have to sound like you care about what you're saying. Think of your round as an opportunity for me to get to know you, throw in a little personality.

Quick Note: Before you read my full paradigm, I want to make one thing clear: I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of Congress. What this means is up to you. There is no single way that congress must be done. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. That being said, the following are my general criteria for what will get you a good rank.

Long Version (Yes, VERY long)

Argumentation:

The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Ultra unique points are not a win condition. Rather, the win condition is the primary impact that the AFF and NEG disagree upon (Climate Change Bill → Sustainability; Min. Wage Bill → impact on low-income Americans). Defend your side’s winning condition if you want my 1 (this can be true for sponsors too).

Clash vs. Rehash:

Here comes the thing every judge says: I don’t like rehashing other people’s points, please provide clash, blah blah blah. That's all true, but I have a more specific recommendation: Make your own arguments and add to your side of the scale. Tipping the scale of the debate often comes with clashes, especially in speeches AFF 2 and after. HOWEVER, I LOVE a good authorship/sponsor/constructives. Do not be afraid to speak early.

That being said, make your clash substantive. Don't just name-drop.(Also, attack the content, not the person.)

Warrants:

You can give me as many cards as you’d like, that doesn’t make the legislation good/bad. You MUST warrant your arguments, and show a connection to the bill. Explain why the evidence is true and how it connects to the action of the bill/resolution.

Presentation:

Do not rely on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak. There is no need for you to constantly read off of your legal pad/iPad. Look up at the judges and your competitors.

Vary your tone. Don’t give one-note speeches. Work on varying your emotions, volume, speed, etc. depending on the intentions of different sections of your speech.

Be creative! Do something new! Have fun! I want to have fun too, please entertain me. The caveat here is that I dislike when competitors fully break the veneer of being a “real member of Congress.” That doesn’t mean do nothing, you can bend this a bit, but do not be unprofessional.

Presiding Officers:

It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me even to consider it. However, I am a big fan of GOOD POs. A good presiding officer must be FAST and CORRECT. Don’t try to fill up the space with your voice; amplify the speakers’ voices. You should be in the background (i.e. don't yap). This type of PO usually sits between my 2 and 5. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop.

All prior statements are pretty standard. In contrast, the remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of Congress.

Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on Congress:

1. Evidence is PARIMOUNT to my ballot. Use good sources, give me numbers, and cite them properly. DO NOT LIE. That will cause an automatic drop from me, because lying to get your way is unfair to your fellow competitors. Please be truthful.

2. While evidence is critical in my ballot, I seriously dislike it when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work and you write down an answer. I have no idea what you’re thinking, SO TELL ME. There are some minimal exceptions here: if your evidence IS a warrant, and it explains the argument, that is fine. But make sure you still connect it to the action the bill takes. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is PART of the debate, not the whole thing.

3. I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. Make me care about your argument. I would like an in-depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

4. Don’t just refute bottom-of-the-barrel arguments; refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the worst arguments or arguments that are not well thought out. Again, your job is to tip the scale of the debate towards your side. Responding to the highest ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

5. I hear a lot of exclusively defensive arguments (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.) and a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else), and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo.

6. Weighing is important, but not as important as the some people likes to pretend. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actually weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each “world” in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing won’t really give you many points on my ballot.

7. Have fun with structure. Run one point, it could probably be fire. Drop 5 warrants with one claim, and you're probably about to be my GOAT. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation, so get creative!!!!

Be respectful to everyone.

Congress:
- This is my specialty

• I expect claim, warrant, data, analysis, impact per each point
• Emotion is vital, performance is just as important as content
• Eye contact
• CX is very important to me
• Clash is not an option, its an expectation

Speech/Interp:

• Memorize
• Pace and Tone make or break it for me
• Eye Contact
• Don't overdo it
• Screaming =/= Emotion

Misc. Debate:

• I don't mind spreading, but be clear
• Impact, but if your impact is unrealistic, I see it as you didn't impact at all (not everything leads to nuclear war).
• Love in depth weighing, love the use of past precedent as an example

Pennsbury High School '25

I have been involved with speech and debate around 4 years - I have competed in a large range of events from Declamation to Public Forum. My main event is Congress, I've been in the final rounds of tournaments like Harvard, Yale, Glenbrooks, Emory, etc. - needless to say, I understand this event through and through.

General rule of thumb, before you continue onward reading this paradigm is to not let it alter your performance - the best performance you can give is one that is authentically you.

Congress:

Argumentation - Make arguments that WIN the round. I do not want to hear any speech after the author/sponsor that is just making one-off claim/warrant/impacts, BE RESPONSIVE AND INTERACTIVE. This is not to say that you should not have offense; a good speech should have offense that it also inherently responsive in that you are bringing a net-harm/positive to your side but also disproving the other side. I dislike arguments that are purely defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). Biggest thing for me argumentatively: I HEAVILY dislike when debaters 'card-spam' or solely rely on evidence without providing any logical warranting for their argument.

• Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

Speaking/Delivery - I will keep this very short because I want to know you and your personal style, not what you think will get my 1. Couple things to avoid are being excessively fast/spreading, being monotone, and yelling. I really enjoy a well-placed joke, be funny and have fun with your AGDs/conclusions. Stay professional but be entertaining and light-hearted.

Presiding Officers - It is INCREDIBLY rare that I rank a presiding officer 1st - this does not mean impossible, do not be dissuaded. Generally, a presiding officer will land anywhere from 3-7, which can be altered depending on the break. If you want to contend for my one: be ultra efficient, be assertive (NOT RUDE), and be concise (I will appreciate you more if you speak as minimally as possible). Being completely honest, the only way this really happens is if you are stellar or if the round is generally rough. If nobody in the chamber wants to PO and you genuinely do it for the sake of the chamber, I will understand and probably reward you. Making a mistake will not get you dropped depending on how you handle them, please be honest about it and move on instead of telling a bold-faced lie. The biggest thing that will make me drop a presiding officer - dropping someone (recency-wise). I have enough knowledge of presiding and this event to know when it is being done and I have ZERO tolerance for it - be equitable.

Originality: You don't have to abide by the conventions of Congress in order to be good, you just have to do the best job of convincing me why your argument is the most important in the round. I don't want you to give copy-paste speeches that you've given before nor extensively rehearsed speeches that sound like ChatGPT. In fact, I would rather you write a speech from scratch in-round if it means you will adapt to the round, include refutation, and explain your advocacy properly. I rank speeches that are good in the context of the round, not just good in a vacuum.

Flipping - I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

Weighing - I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

Refutation - Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

LD/PF:

I rarely judge this so not much to say.

Truth > Tech (make your argument make sense - don't just card dump on me)

Speaking: One thing I often feel with 'hard'-debate events is that debaters forget that their is a lay appeal too. Your argumentation is obviously most important but I need to be able to clearly hear you. Speed is not an issue but when you have excessive fluency breaks that will impact you. (This is NOT to say that I will not listen to your content - I will weigh argumentation above all but this is still important.

Argumentation: I will flow the round. Major thing is that you should not drop anything: respond to everything, and defend every aspect of your argument. Make your framework CLEAR - this is very important to me.

General note: I tend to find the CX is often a wash as it turns into a screaming match - be respectful and maintain your calm.

Yes, this paradigm is intentionally in Comic Sans. Enjoy!!

EXPERIENCE
Member of the NSDA's USA Debate Education Program for WSD. Captain of the Naperville Central HS Debate Team. Semifinalist at 2023 TOC in Congressional Debate.

CONGRESS
I rank each bill separately and then rank speakers based on cumulative rankings on each bill. If the chamber does 3 bills with base 2, I will find some equitable way to rank the round. I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and delivery in that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

• REFUTE -- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
• EXTEND -- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
• WEIGHING -- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
  Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

• ARGUMENTS -- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
• EVIDENCE -- Give strong quantifications wherever possible. Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
• PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

• INTROS -- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater), I will drop you -- yes this is hypocritical if you know me irl, I don't care.
• PADS -- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but probably won't drop you if you use one. Legal pads are preferred.

WSD:
I come mostly from a Congress background, so I weigh speaking and style more heavily than other judges. However, that almost exclusively goes for speaking points and spreading won't impact which side wins the debate in my view.

I'm usually okay if you speak a little fast, but I need to be able to flow and if I can't understand you, I can't do that and it won't help you (plus your speaks will be pretty bad).

Other than that, content comes first. Make compelling arguments and give strong mechs for them. Examples of your mechs are preferred but not required. Impacting means a lot so do that well too-- a strong impact will win you the round if done well.

Some quick things that will get you ranked higher / make you do better:

• POIs -- I will drop your team if you constantly deny POIs or don't give them.
• SIGNPOST -- Trust me, it helps a lot.
• CLASH -- Please use clash-style refutation in The 3 and a little in The Reply. Use whatever Refutations you want in The 1/2.
• PRINICIPLE -- I love a good principle argument, but if it isn't done well then I'll typically take the practical instead. Analogies are key.
• RHETORIC -- Rhetorical analysis is too often missed out on in WSD, if you give good rhetoric (including a solid intro/outro) I will immediately pick you up for speaks.

Generally speaking, the easiest/fastest path to the ballot is the one I'm going to take, so make it obvious why I should pick your side.

Hey. I'm a senior in HS and this is my 4th year competing in Congressional Debate & my 1st year competing in Public Forum Debate.

Congress Paradigm:

Delivery & Presentation:
I value delivery more than reading a pre-written speech off your pad. This means having good eye contact and having tonal variations. Always memorize your intros and conclusions.

Argumentation:
I will judge you based on what you argue rather than my views of the world. I will vote for any argument as long as it is well-warranted and backed by quality evidence. My rank will be reflective of three things:

1. Do you interact with other arguments made in the round? The later in the round you speak, the greater amount of time you should spend refuting/weighing/extending arguments.
2. Do you bring in new information to the debate that benefits your side's advocacy? If you rehash other's arguments, I will rank you lower on my ballot. Don't be afraid to extend a previously made argument!
3. Do you explain the impact of your argument? This is Congressional Debate! Please tell me how the bill benefits the American public/harms the American public. Weigh the impacts of both sides whenever possible.

Presiding Officer:
(PO): It is your responsibility to lead the chamber. If no one else wants to preside and you step up, I will reward you accordingly, and your ballot will reflect that. If you run for PO in a competitive election and do a poor job, it will reflect on your ballot because when you ran for PO, you claimed that you could do a better job than all of those people. You will start as a 3 on my ballot and for every major error, I will drop you by 1 point on my ballot. I will not mark you down for an error if I notice it, but no competitor calls you out for it. A good PO is fast and fair. When randomly choosing speakers, select speakers from different areas of the chamber and different schools.

PF Paradigm:

I have limited experience competing in Public Forum. However, I understand the event and the different functions of each speech in the round. You will see me listening to you more than you will see me taking notes.

1. Don't spread. Speak at a pace at which I can understand your speech.
2. Avoid jargon. The best debaters effectively communicate complex concepts so that everyone can understand them.
3. No off-time roadmaps.

Cross-examination is often underutilized and misused in Public Forum debate. If you find a weakness in your opponent's argument during cross-examination or manage to gain a concession, address it during your rebuttal or summary and explain how it helps your advocacy. I will recognize and reward teams who do this effectively.

Hi, I'm Ashish Kashyap, and I'm a junior at William Fremd High School, in my 3rd year of Congressional Debate. I've been competing in the ICDA and TOC circuit for a few years, have won a few things and all that. Hope this paradigm helps. My email is ashdakash@gmail.com if you have any questions. Feel free to ask anything.

General thoughts:

In terms of judging, I don't have much experience, but all of my views as a judge reflect what I feel about Congress as a whole, which I can easily talk about. My debate "philosophy" came from something a basketball coach told me many years ago.

"Take only what the game gives you".

To me, the most important thing in Congress is to be able to adapt all of your "prep" and pre-prepared rhetoric and such, and be ready to completely change everything you had. It’s very obvious when someone hasn't adjusted for the round properly, and it really stands out in a negative light. Be ready to change, adapt, and even learn new things in chamber. The best speeches I've ever seen, happen when people have an extemporaneous response to the ongoings of the round.

Delivery/Presentation:

To me, a speaker's presentation of their arguments can be the difference-maker. I heavily heavily value strong delivery, with passion, and skillful tone variation. Feel free to be as loud as you want. Just make sure to give your volume a meaning within the context of what you're saying, otherwise you're just yelling at the chamber. I recognize that delivery is a skill that not everybody has down, and that's OK. I will never penalize for a speaker who's presenting strong, unique arguments for not having entrancing delivery. But if you can effectively convey your ideas, and pair that with skillful presentation, you will be rewarded. Don’t forget that your delivery is the best place to try out new things, new styles, new voices, and I really value this when it's done well.

Argumentation/Structure:

The best way to get my 1 with argumentation is to bring a game changing take. Find arguments that will rip the debate a new one, instead of relying on things we’ve both heard a million times. In this day and age, with TikTok and YouTube being so popular, everybody’s entertainment driven. So am I. I will be massively entertained if you present arguments that nobody else would even think of. And don’t do your amazing argument a disservice by not connecting it back to the round and your opposition. But when you do refute, I’m not impressed with refuting weaker arguments. Pick on someone your size. If your argument is truly round winning, then you should be refuting the strongest arguments of the other side. This doesn’t mean name dropping, this means going through their links, and showing me why they do not work anymore. Once you’ve done this, explain why your argument matters in multiple contexts, and why it wins the round. Many debaters drop some crazy cards, but don’t do anything to explain why anyone should care. When that happens, what’s being said isn’t really an “argument”, it’s just a statement.

For structure, I don’t know how else to say this, but do whatever the hell you want. I don’t care if you have one point, two points, three points, bloc, no block, whatever it may be, do not feel limited to the things you’ve been taught. At the end of the day, I’m just looking for a fluid organization that’s clearly conveyed, and the possibilities to accomplish that are endless. Get creative, do it properly, and it’ll be rewarded.

For sponsorships, I have a simple set of expectations. Frame the context properly, and jumpstart the affirmation by tying your set of arguments to the context. I don’t care about having or not having pre-refs. Don’t shy away from the sponsor, I think good sponsors always stand out in muddled debates.

PO:

I don’t think I’m capable of giving a PO a 1 rank. I’ll be honest, I’m a really bad PO. Like historically bad (But I’ve still been in enough rounds to know when you’ve messed up). In terms of Congress, I don’t understand why having a student PO is necessary. So as a combination of those two things, I don’t rank them as 1. That being said, if you’re the PO, make minimal mistakes, be fair and relatively efficient, and I’ll rank you higher than the break cutoff for the round. For outrounds, I’ll expect more efficiency and almost no mistakes, but I’ll properly reward you for that.

Also, not having a personality and being “boring” as a PO won’t knock you down, but please, make jokes, have some fun as a PO (while not sacrificing your efficiency). Rounds are long, people get tired, so PO’s with a likable personality will always stand out.

Questioning:

I take note of questioning. Consistent good questioning and good composure and responses can move the needle. Both the question in question, and the response. With shorter blocks, be concise, and don’t add liberties or congratulations. Get straight to the point. Cut straight into the arguments and the links. Remember to be civil, but I’m fine with heated back and forths. Passion is great!

Hi! I’m Omkar, and I currently compete in congressional debate at William Fremd HS.

Congressional debate is about presenting effective arguments that further ongoing debate. I basically judge based off that sentence. For presentation, I value uniqueness - be yourself, not whatever congressional debater you've watched a video of. At the end of the day, you'll always sound more believable and interesting by leaning into your style. The arguments you present need to be accurate and effective. I expect clear warranting - sources are good, but stats need to be paired with an understandable reason why. Finally, you need to explain how the arguments you make interact with the debate. Whether that be through weighing, delinking, or turning, it's not a good Congress speech unless it's clearly aware of the round it's being given in. That being said, this doesn't mean I will rank down sponsorships. I understand that the sponsor has a different job than the rest of the round, and I will rate a good sponsorship just as high, if not higher, than I would rate a good mid-round or late-round speech. A sponsor needs to adequately set up the status quo as it relates to the bill, establish the key frameworks that the round will revolve around, and have plenty of offense showing why the aff is the winning side.

Outside of speeches, I value questions that advance the debate through delinking and weighing. If you ask a good question and the speaker is consistently avoiding it, don't waste your 30 seconds. Move on - I will notice when a good question wasn't answered properly. I will rank good POs at minimum whatever is needed to break: “good” means the chamber runs quickly because the PO keeps control and doesn't make mistakes. Be respectful and kind to your fellow debaters, and have fun!

In Congressional Debate: Delivery keeps me engaged. Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

Copied from the GOAT Coach Victoria Beard

Rehder Myhre's Congress Paradigm:

Congressional Debate Captain, Speech and Debate Vice President, Joshua High School (2022-2024, currently an outgoing senior who is done with debate for the year). Finalist at UIL 5A State and TFA State Qualified in '24. Planning on debating at the University of Alabama.

This may seem like a ramble. You have been warned. :)

First and foremost, this is a competition. I appreciate tactical use and the knowing / tracking of one's own recency and precedence (in particular in the UIL circuit, where wifi is banned and thus you are unable to share a singular PO sheet). Moving the previous question on your own volition when debate is tiring is greatly appreciated.

Also, should go without saying, but nothing offensive. Keep that out of Congressional Debate.

POs: I was a presiding officer in high school, and I understand how it can feel to run a great chamber just to be left off the rankings or failing to break. I will generally start the PO at the last breaking spot for any chamber that is not finals. You will move up from there based on the quality of the room and how well you preside. If the room is subpar and you make no mistakes, than a 1 is not out of the realm of possibility. However, mistakes will drag you down. I will be keeping track of precedence and recency specifically to point out where you may have errored to help you improve. Don't stress, run your chamber efficiently, equitably, transparently, and with speed, and you will almost always move on. Keep in mind your word economy, don't say too much or be too flashy trying to impress, it will have the opposite effect on me. Be honest if you make a mistake, it will bring you down less. Make your best effort to stop pointless motion wars, I did not like them as a PO, as a competitor, and I do not like them as a judge. I understand sometimes you are put in tough situations, as long as you follow the rules of order and keep the chamber in order, you'll be fine. For finals, I can't exactly guarantee any standing, but you won't be forgotten.

For the rest of you, I appreciate good contentions and scholarly or otherwise non-periodical evidence. Your points must be backed up with some sort of evidence, and you must be able to provide analysis of that evidence that makes sense. Don't just spit numbers out at me, tell me what they mean. I can deal with speed, but not CX level spreading. If you want to talk that fast, go compete in CX. Vocal delivery is important to me. Be loud, but not yelling. In terms of physical presence, be confident, engage with the chamber. Try not to read too much from your reference material, whether it be a legal pad, paper, tablet or similar. I do not appreciate the use of laptops, or anything that takes two hands to hold, and your rank will suffer if you use one. I have a certain tolerance for reading IF you make no fluency errors. Fluency errors while reading are not excusable. Overall, try to keep eyes towards the chamber >50% of the time, and move around the chamber throughout your speech (without swaying too much while standing). Distracting gestures are terrible, do not do them. That includes the finger wag, finger over the page, you all know it, I do not like it. Make simple, meaningful gestures. Lastly, don't give a speech just to give it. If your precedence sucks, consider giving a speech on the next item. Crystals are kind of lame to me, but I understand why they exist. I just don't want to hear 4 or 5 of them in a round. Similarly, don't give a late constructive, just know what speeches to give when. If you use the same evidence as someone else without providing new analysis, or just verbatim use the exact same quote, it will drop you massively. Adapt in round. Also, CLASH. Congress IS a debate event. You need to clash if you aren't the author or sponsor. I'm not talking about simply referencing either, great clash is key to a good speech beyond the first. Come prepped please, shouldn't have to say that.

I will be less strict on these for novices. You guys are still learning, so it is understandable. (Do novices even read paradigms?)

In the end, just be you, and do the best you can!