I am new to judging, so please speak clearly and emphasize your key points. Avoid jargon whenever possible. I will do my best to stay with you. I enjoy a healthy debate. Avoid repetition, if you are going bring the same point up, do so only if you have a new perspective or detail to add.

Best of Luck !!

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

what i'm especially looking for in congress:

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

good luck with your speeches and congratulations for joining today!

I am a parent judge and am doing the best I can to get better as a judge for a variety of events. I value Speech and Debate for my own son and want to make judging worthwhile for all participants. I am a high school mathematics teacher with a Master's degree in teaching Math and undergraduate degrees in Political Science and History.

I judge all types of debate using a standard point system. I do my best to keep personal feelings on a topic out of any assessment I make. I value good, clean, easy to follow arguments and I am not a fan of spending too much time on definitions and minutiae. I also value a good listener. So if your opponent makes a point, make sure that you address it and counter it as best you can.

In events with extended monologues (or speech events) I value eye contact, clarity, and body language. I want to feel that you are passionate and genuine about what you are speaking about.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Congress

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

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

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

P.F.

The biggest thing is to debate P.F., don't treat it like policy. Please be clear about when you are switching contentions and be sure to weigh your impacts clearly, don't assume that us judges are making the same connections that you are. If you run a one contention case, please have strong links. Please spell out your impacts, Imperialism isn't an impact, you need to tell me why imperalism is bad. As a judge I won't let my background influince my decision, but that does meen you need to tell me exactly what your impacts meens in terms of qountifiable impacts, number of deaths, cost of monye, increce in crime, global destabilisation, that kind of thing.

Congress:

I've been judging Congress for 6 years now, and of course, all the basic things are important: good projection, good variation in vocal tone and volume for emphasis, and most importantly, a cohesive, original argument. In addition, please be respectful of your competitors; assertive speech styles are fine, but avoid ad hominem attacks. Similarly, when asking questions, don't interrupt the answerer when they haven't even finished a sentence yet; again, find the line between assertive and just plain rude. Make sure your introduction doesn't have a jarring shift in tone when compared to the rest of your speech. Lots of people enjoy funny intros, but they don't really work if you give a speech about war crimes, for example. Crystalizing is good, but if you have an entire speech that's just crystalizing, you end up with something that is more like 6 30-second long speeches instead of a single 3-minute speech, so don't go overboard with it. Make sure if you use the same arguments as a previous speaker, you do something new with it, or go in greater depth in a specific aspect of the argument. Otherwise, all you're doing is telling the judges that you thought the previous speaker did a really good job.

A smaller thing, but it still bugs me when it happens, please don't use debate lingo in congress when it doesn't make grammatical sense without a debate background, for example "sqo solves" is not something that makes sense unless you do debate and this isn't the place for that.

Email: Oscarh.rich@gmail.com

Bio

My experience in the world of debate spans about nine years across local, state, and national venues. I competed in congressional debate for all four years of high school and have judged intermittently since. I have experience judging all four debate categories but congress is my favorite. In fact, it was my time in competition that helped inspire my higher education pathway as I recently completed my bachelor's program in political science, with a concentration in American foreign policy.

Congressional Debate

I evaluate competitors on a few core aspects.

First, your acting skills - do you pass as a member of Congress? There are many great, knowledgable speakers who need to improve their acting skills. Lean in to the role and make me believe you really area congressperson.

Second, eye contact and inflection. They're two of the most common improvements that I note on ballots. I don't require extemporaneous speaking for a good mark, but consistent eye contact to the audience delivered with appropriate inflection is needed.

Third, cross examination skills. I'm easily impressed by an insightful line of questioning, but easily put off by aggressive badgering.

Best of luck.