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

Speech and Debate is three things, to me: a sport, an art, and a game. I judge accordingly. These tenets are universal, although I do have event-specific info below.

AS A SPORT

Speech and Debate is about winning, but not through raw force of will, or endurance, or physical power. It's one of the only spaces in which the winner is the one who best utilizes their intelligence and skill. This is what I want to see from competitors: however you see fit, show me unequivocally why you deserve to triumph.

AS AN ART

Speech and Debate is a space for you to express yourself and strike at the heart of what it means to be a human being. This is the next thing I want to see from competitors: show me unequivocally who you are.

AS A GAME

Speech and Debate is also supposed to be entertaining. Although debate kids tend to be above average (read: monumental nerds) this is not quiz bowl, this is not UIL history, this is not chess club. This is meant to be entertaining and enjoyable, and the best competitor is often the one who is having the most fun. This is the final thing I want to see from competitors: show me unequivocally why you're having fun.

And now, Event Specific Info, for the poor souls who find themselves judged by me:

Congress/Extemp

These two events function based on the same fundamental framework. Be clear, convince me, utilize analysis. Either make me laugh (using humor, puns, irony) or make me cry (using pathos, real stories, emotional appeals.) Above all else, DON'T BE BORING.

LD/PF/CX

I despise spreading, communicate with me or lose. I am willing to vote on either tech or truth - it is your job, not mine, to set the parameters of the debate. Just know, if you're going to run something that is flagrantly untrue, you must be ready to go to the ends of the Earth to defend it... in the words of David Foster Wallace, "The truth will set you free, but not until it is finished with you."

Speech Events

I don't really know much about judging these events, but I'm looking for the competitors who sell me their role, their character, their story, their whatever. I want to be convinced that I'm witnessing something real, not a performance by a high school kid in formal clothes. Please don't spend your whole speech screaming at headache-inducing levels.

Good luck everyone!

also if you quote or reference: tolstoy, dostoyevsky, kafka, wright, ellison, delillo, or d.f.w., i will up you.

Pairings just came out, the round begins in 5 minutes, and you don't want to read the full paradigm version: Be nice, be engaging, be funny, have a unique persona. Warranting and weighing is VERY VERY important. Do not be rude (it really aint that deep). comparative analysis = very important.

My main areas of experience are congress, PF, parliamentary (east coast), LD, extemp, and OO.

I value strong argumentation, (respectful) clash between, and debaters who have a unique persona (especially debaters who lean into their sense of humor). From the first neg onward, clash and substantive refutation is a MUST. While I'm mainly looking at the quality of your arguments, it's also important that you speak clearly and keep everyone interested. Don't be afraid to take risks and let your personality shine through. I want to be entertained!! During cross-examination, just keep it respectful and avoid getting too loud.

Back up your speech with evidence and warrants. Don’t just vent to me about your thoughts on this bill or how you think other speeches suck. Simple arguments (especially comparative arguments) with strong warranting usually win. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be nice to eachother. I really don’t want to see a bunch of angry highschoolers yelling at eachother about sanctions on Cuba at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Be enthusiast and be entertaining.

Do not be dependent on your legal pad. While this is congressional DEBATE, public speaking and engagement is extremely important. Making good points will not be nearly as effective if you do not deliver them well. Think of it this way: never in my life have I heard someone say, “yeah, Obama really won that debate on the flow.” people determine if politicians win the debate based off of both the content they deliver and, more importantly, HOW they deliver. The heart of congress is persuading the ordinary person. So, act as if I am a first time parent judge from rural minnesota who has never even heard of congressional debate before.

Be spontaneous and engaging. Im a sucker for good ORIGINAL rhetoric…don’t just tell me that democracy dies in darkness…put time and thought into your rhetoric.

Do NOT just dump evidence without actual analysis. I'd rather see thoughtful analysis that explains your points clearly than a bunch of card dumping. In new york state finals my sophomore year, I read a speech with 17 cards and statistics in it…do NOT be that guy. Remember, warrants are key; your arguments need to make sense on their own, not just rely on evidence. Be clear and to the point in your reasoning.

Take risks. I HIGHLY (like very very highly) reward when speakers stand up for speeches when they have to (e.g. flipping on an uneven debate or prepping a sponsorship last minute).

POs: BE FUNNY AND HAVE PERSONALITY.be fast, fair, and efficient. your job is to lead the chamber, not JUST calling on people and dealing with parliamentary procedure. try to get us out of session as fast as possible. a good po will be ranked top 4.

ANY homophobia, racism, or any misogyny will get you INSTANTLY dropped. Also, do not tokenize the trauma of minorities for the sake of “pathos.” If you want to know what I mean by that, read this: tinyurl.com/tokenizationarticle

If you have any questions, feel free to email me (owcasey@packer.edu) or dm me (owencaseyy_).

No, you can't bribe me in order to get good ranks. I have more integrity than my Congress persona would suggest.

Howdy! My name is Henry (he/him) and I’m a congress and worlds debater (as well as an extemper) from Texas. I’m a fairly seasoned competitor in these events, but definitely not the most seasoned judge you’ve ever had, so this paradigm is more than anything an outline of what I think good debate looks like based on my experience as a debater.

My goal as a judge is to provide constructive criticism of where you can improve as a debater, but if you have feedback/questions for me, I’m more than happy to hear you out! Talk to me after round, or contact me at hankfrankd@gmail.com, but I expect you to be respectful.

ROUND CONDUCT EXPECTATIONS:

• Make a conscious effort to make the round inclusive. You need to respect your peers' pronouns, name pronunciations, accommodations, etc. It's one thing to mess up and make the correction; it's very different to completely disregard someone's identity. This goes for everybody.

• [For congress mainly, but this applies to everyone]: Do better than actual congress. Don't be hostile or condescending--even all the "good" people are--because it ruins the round for everybody. Respect and decorum are the foundation of a good round in any event.

Discrimination/acting hateful towards your fellow competitors is unacceptable and non-negotiable. This is a losing gamble and I will drop you.

Now for the rambling...

CONGRESS

Don’t think of this as a “how to do congress for dummies” instruction manual; think of this as my views on what the best practices of a good congress round should be. How you choose to do congress is ultimately your call, so play to your strengths and have fun!

CONGRESS IN 11 WORDS

Change things. Break norms. Smash arguments. Innovate. Move the round forward!

CONGRESS IN 3 POINTS

I consider all three of these principles fairly deeply; I don't weigh presentation vs. argumentation "70/30" or anything like that.

• ARGUMENTATION: I will vote for debaters who do the most to advance the round and strengthen their side. Destroy your opponents’ highest ground, extend your side’s winning impacts, and hand me the clearest analysis possible. Don’t just tell me you’re winning, prove it.

• PRESENTATION: I will vote for debaters who bring the confidence, eloquence, and knowledge that make engaging speeches. Persuasive presentation is what makes congress a uniquely powerful type of debate, so try your best and get creative!

• ENGAGEMENT: Keep questioning, speaking, and engaging with the round. If you disappear from the debate just because you don’t like the bill or because the 3-hour round has gotten the best of you, you make me wonder how invested you really are [this isn’t great]. Keep fighting!

CONGRESS: THE SNYDER CUT

My philosophical “Congress is _______” statement:

Congress is debate presented in a way that is both easily understandable and compelling to ordinary people. If you’ve ever watched C-SPAN, you know that real-world legislators don’t speak with extreme speed or use unfamiliar terminology ("going down the flow", "solvency deficit", etc.); they debate complex legislation with big implications at a level their couch-potato constituents can understand and persuade people to take actions on problems they see.

Here’s a more extensive list of what I like to see in congress rounds:

• For early-round speakers (for sponsors this is fundamental): assume I know absolutely nothing about the bill at hand and give me a detailed rundown of what the bill would accomplish, who would implement it, and what the real-world impacts of its enactment would be. Why is this bill even necessary/completely atrocious?

• CITE THE LEGISLATION! This is a relatively simple action to take, but it makes you seem vastly more knowledgeable regarding the legislation you’re debating, and makes your words much more credible.

• For everyone except the sponsor, refute and interact with the arguments of the opposing side. More specifically, refute the STRONGEST arguments on the opposing side; don't just target the easiest or weakest arguments. This doesn't just have to look like simple rebuttals; I really like turns and offensive responses if that's your thing, but again, how you debate is up to you.

• Analyze the debate and draw new conclusions that keep the debate alive and relevant [crystalize and weigh if you're later in the round]. Using your limited speech time for rehash is a massive waste of your time, your competitors' time, and an educational opportunity for all of us. Rehash is not the same thing as offering a quick review of key clashes as context for analysis; rehash is repeating arguments that have already been made without adding any new analysis or implications to move the debate forward. Please, please, please use your speech to bring something new into the round!

• Be as persuasive as possible. The more invested and engaged in the debate you act, the more compelling a speaker you seem. I don't place much value on having a congress "persona"; I would rather you simply be as enthusiastic and authentic as you possibly can. Your speaking style and rhetorical choices offer a huge opportunity to distinguish yourself as a unique and effective speaker, but they also offer an opportunity to experiment with your approach to presentation. Being inventive, innovative, and creative in congress will take you far.

• Use evidence to substantiate your argument, not to make it. Your arguments should make logical sense without evidence, and what evidence you use should be contextualized and warranted into your broader arguments, rather than standing alone. [Also, make sure your evidence passes the smell test; if you're asking, "do I cite a news article from 1983?" or "is this Russian propaganda?", you should probably look elsewhere.]

PO Paradigm:

• A wise congress debater once said, "there are three type of PO: fast POs, charismatic POs, and bad POs". Being fast not only means you know how to keep precedence in a timely manner, it also means you know the rules of congress well enough to resolve rules questions and issues quickly. Being charismatic means you know how to lead the chamber in a respectful and engaging--but not intrusive--way, and know how to make the round fun in addition to being fair. Being bad means you don't know how to control a chamber or make no effort to preserve decorum or resolve challenges when the need arises. Trying your best is the bare minimum here.

• I am willing to grant POs more slack if no one is willing to run and you are forced to take on the challenge, but I still need to see a consistent effort to preserve decorum, keep precedence, and move the round along. Know what you're doing, or at least do a good job of acting like it.

• Automatic precedence charts can be useful, but you still need to know what's going on in the round without them. If you can't explain why someone's precedence is what it is because you're letting an opaque computer program do your job, that's on you.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

• Debate is a game, which makes it competitive by nature, but it's ultimately not that deep. The only expectations I have for you at the end of the day are to try your hardest, be open to learning, and be a respectful person.

Good luck and have fun!

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 like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and deliveryin 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 won't drop you for using one.

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.

Be Yourself, I dislike seeing people change their speaking identity because of a paradigm.

Hi I'm Hau Lam Lung (you might know me as Helios) and I'm a HS competitor who does mostly congress, sometimes extemp, used to do HI.

First and foremost, be MEMORABLE. Take some risks, think about your arguments strategically, and be authentic with your speaking. Be a good, likable person in the round. Even if you have amazing content, you might be punished ranks wise if you come off as rude or condescending during CX.

Secondly, fit your role in the round. Properly establish the issues as a sponsor, do a good job of reffing as a mid round speaker, and make sure to weigh if you're going late round. Of course, even if you're slightly outside your role (e.g. maybe not the most weighing as a late round speaker), but you're incredibly memorable I will still reward you. I won't force you to crystal or go with any traditional structure at any point in the round, speak to what's relevant – every round will have a different speech structure that works best.

Content-wise, just make good, logical, intuitive arguments and don't forget to clash with people. It'll be a good argument if it's persuasive and I believe it even without evidence, I will try to judge everything as unbiased as possible but if something just sounds really wrong or confusing I'm probably not gonna buy it.

Make sure to let me know who you're clashing with – "Sen. Lung says [their claim] because [their warrant.] This is wrong because [my claim] because [my warrant]" – even though I do flow rounds, I'm not going to look back towards my flow consistently, if you can make my job easy and signpost very clearly I will reward you for your clarity.

Speaking wise, I think a lot of debaters fall into the trap of having a "congress voice" when they deliver speeches. Calmer, more conversational delivery is usually the way to go with me but anything that sounds natural and works for you works for me. Use unique rhetoric that catches my attention and brings some level of emotional appeal to me; hearing overused rhetoric does the opposite of positive emotional appeal so be original.

POs: You can make a couple of mistakes but just don't make me think you don't know what you're doing. Even if you are making some mistakes just don't make it super noticeable and still sound assertive. If a tournament has really tight breaks, I'll put you in my top 3. I'll put you in the top 6 if we're in a final round tho, since I tend to prefer speakers. Of course there are always exceptions and you can just be an insanely good PO, which I'll reward you for.

For TOC where POs in finals are ranked independent of speakers, I'll rank off whoever comes off the most authoritative and runs the round quickest. Some of this is subjective so unfortunately I don't have a ton of advice for you.

Have fun, email me at helioslung@gmail.com or DM me @helioslung if you have any questions on your ballots.

If I'm judging you at a MS tournament and you want to work with me this summer, I'll be working at NCI middle school. Lots of financial aid, really great program, and I'd be very happy to answer any questions you have about the program.

Hi, I am Anirudh Sriram (go by ani), and I've done congress for a while now. I am a competitor at heart and taking a look at judging. General criteria for me is a bit different. I reward the lay appeal. BE SIMPLE, and have charisma. You can be the best debater in the round with the "round-winning" turn but it won't MATTER AT ALL if your fellow judges don't understand. Debate as if you're speaking to your parents. have passion.

The quickest path to my 1 is a balance between good speaking, round-winning argumentation (IE: the person who convinces me that I should vote for their side), and straight up round Prescence.

ANYONE from first aff to last neg can get my 1, remember that.

I do look at CX pretty heavily, no tips here since its stylistically dependent on what you want to do.

NO DEBATE VOICE NO DEBATE VOICE NO DEBATE VOICE.

Okay, back to actual topic. Any speech after first cycle should be referring to other speakers. I don't really care for late-round speaking that just crystalizes solely. I always think late round speeches should still have an argument that the competitor is bringing out. Keep that in mind.

NGL, I recognize PO's, but you're not going to be my 1,2,3,4,5 unless you are crazy like Parker De Decker crazy (alright maybe not that crazy but you get it). I will be lenient though and prolly give you 1,2,3,4,5 if the breaks are bad. I always have yall usually on my 6 most times unless y'all make a LOT of mistakes. If you're an average PO, you get a 6. If you're really good you get moved up. I don't ever expect yall to be my 1 cause again I feel like speakers outweigh in my criteria for judging but never say never yk?

Flipping is appreciated but honestly expected because again at nat-circ tournaments un-even debate should never be an issue because people should have both sides prepped. Nonetheless if you flip straight up cause everyone for some odd reason is one side of the bill I'll be uber happy and factor that in ranking.

Weighing is important but again, make it simple enough for a parent to understand.

Hopefully yall understand, i got my email below if y'all got any questions.

anismailid@gmail.com

gl have fun,

Earl Warren '19

UT Austin '23

Email: morgan.tucker02@gmail.com

I primarily competed in Congress primarily but also did LD, DX, and IX.

Overall, I'm cool with just about anything. Do what YOU want, but do it well.

Congress Paradigms

Please engage in clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. i mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. i'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't mess up big time.

LD and PF

- don't be mean.

'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework, meta-weighing, kritiks, plans, cps, disads, and (kinda) theory. trix are bad but I am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through, then, it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extend what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two arguments, then I will default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing, I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow, but keep in mind that I have never been the best at flowing. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' three times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down.

Team cases are the worst, I prob won't be very happy to hear and judge a case that I have heard before and will likely give lower speaks. Team cases ruin the integrity of debate and make me sad :( -- The purpose of debate isn't to win, it is to develop yourself and your cognitive reasoning. Case writing and research is essential to that.

Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.