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

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.

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

Congress: I like to see that you know the game of Congress so if I can tell that you're strategizing (internally, with others in the room, with teammates) I'm gonna be happy. I like debaters that debate. Sounding pretty is good but giving rebuttals and avoiding giving constructive speeches in the middle of the legislation are even better. You should have enough evidence or common sense to speak on either side of the legislation at any point, wasting recesses to write speeches or chide others for not being ready (while you're not offering to speak either) will be criticized.

Public Forum: Give me voters in summary and final focus or give me death! I am a logic-chain judge; if your arguments require me to suspend disbelief or ignore reality then expect them to be dropped from the flow. Behavior within the round matters just as much as performance so please do not be rude to your partner or competitors and try to maintain professionalism for the sake of an efficient round. Speeches that matter the most to me are rebuttals so an organized rebuttal that responds to as much of the competitors case as possible will positively impact my vote overall.

Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

Hi! I'm Ojasvi. I'm a sophomore at Berkeley studying Data Science, Economics, and American Studies. I competed in Congress for all four years in high school, and got 3rd at Harvard my senior year. I have been coaching/judging since I graduated.

If you are reading your speech word for word, and not making any attempt to be extemporaneous or hold eye contact, I will not rank you. You should also be speaking from a legal pad or piece of paper, instead of using your laptop or iPad.

My judging is 75:25 content to delivery ratio when it comes to my ballot. I should be able to understand all of the links in your speech. If I can't understand a link, then I probably won't look too highly at everything that came after it. Make sure to warrant well. If you're asserting that something is true, I need to understand why it's true; there should be nothing in your speech that is being asserted without a clear explanation of why that thing is true. Most of the time, the argument that wins the round is the one that ties it back to the status quo because it very clearly explains how things will get better or worse. If I don't understand the present, then there is no way I can understand the impacts of the bill clearly enough.

Excellent delivery will help you, and bad delivery, especially if it's hurting my understanding of your argument, will hurt you. This paragraph applies to extemp speaking too - my biggest thing in all events is you should have very good logic + very good logic chain(s) throughout your speech.

Clash is needed if you are after the 1st AFF, and I do expect you to be performing your place in the round well (whether or not you performed your place in the round is something I do factor into ranks) – if you're giving what should be a crystal based on your place in the round, then I should be hearing a crystal. Anyone can get my 1 in the round (including the sponsor) so don't be afraid to sponsor – if no one is sponsoring/giving a speech and you offer to do it then I will take that into consideration.

I think clash has been something that was severely underdeveloped in a lot of the rounds I've judged. You should be (1) explaining why other people are wrong using logic/evidence (2) leveraging your own argument to explain how someone else is wrong so that I understood how your argument interacts with others arguments and/or (3) telling me why your argument is the most important in the round. If you state your argument in a vacuum without acknowledging/refuting anyone, then you are leaving me as the judge to decide how I think it interacts, instead of telling me what you want me to know about how your argument is more important. This becomes especially true the more a round goes on – if all of the AFFs arguments can be boiled down to one major theme, and the NEG a different theme, regardless of what side you are on, you have to tell me why your side is more important and who I should listen to. Essentially you want me to be doing as little thinking as possible about whose argument has the impact I should prioritize the most, because you as a speaker should be telling that to me in your speech.

I pay a lot of attention during questioning (especially direct questioning). While I was competing I thought questioning was the most fun part of the event! Ask good questions, and if you can poke some solid holes in your opponent's arguments (instead of just going like 'what about x argument' which has basically 0 connection to what their speech was on) that would be awesome. I really can not overstate how much I love questioning and very attentively pay attention during it.

On my ranks, I reward good - excellent POs, and drop POs who make chamber run inefficiently or unfairly.

Above all though, be respectful. If you're not respectful - in your speech, in your questioning, etc - that's the easiest way for you to get dropped on my ballot. That being said, have fun with it. As long as you're not going on ad-hominem attacks or being racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist, if you want to make some jokes, I'll be chill with it and will probably laugh.

Have fun with it! The rounds where I did best were always when I was just having a blast.

Tl;dr: Content is king, warrant well, have clash if you're after the first AFF, be respectful, ask good questions, and have fun. Good luck!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at ojasvi.saxena@berkeley.edu.

Hi, I'm Alex, I did Congress for 4 years. Here are my expectations in-round.

• Clash is expected in mid to late round speeches. Make sure analysis is clear- the strength of the argument itself is important but you also need to present it in a efficient way.
• I value persuasive memorable presentation/delivery. Polished speakers will score well.
• A forceful demeanor is fine, but don't be mean. As in yelling over the questioner/questionee to force a point across, or ad hominem.