Congress

Evidence should be properly cited, personal anecdotes or opinions will not suffice as evidence. When using previous arguments, it should be done to directly to refute or add to the the argument, not just rehash the same information again. Debaters should have a strong understanding of the arguments you make. I also expect everyone to be respectful in round, especially during questioning periods. POs should make sure they are not rushing to get through the session, which can result in mistakes. Clarity and strength of arguments count the most, but your presentation does factor in.

Whether you are in person or speaking virtually, public speaking skills stand out. Work for "eye contact" as opposed to reading speeches in debate events. Keep in mind that I need to be able to see and hear you clearly. Stand up and speak up. Speak with conviction and confidence. Perform with confidence. NO ONE knows your material better than you! (Even if you do not know your topic/material/case as well as you or miss a word, how would I know?! You need to sell me your side/piece/speech. Make me want to keep listening to you after the time has run out!)

As a congress judge, I will remind you that it is called Congressional DEBATE and not Congressional Speechmaking. Take time to refute the Representatives/Senators before you. Answer and ask questions with purpose and confidence. Be clear about evidence--in other words: HAVE SOME! Anyone that is brave enough to PO needs to know the procedure and must be able to be fair and unbiased.

For CX and LD, speed is not always your friend-- especially if we are virtual. Slowing down and articulation are the keys to a good debate. Also, Clash is not just a band from the '80s. I expect to be given solid reasons to vote for you. Perhaps use the last 30 sec of your last speech to crystalize the round for me. Tell me what is important. I may not be a fan of your K or CP, but if you present it well and defend it against attacks, I will vote on it.

I consider myself to best fit the “game” style of Judging in which any form of argument or “win” condition is acceptable from Stock issues to Kriticks and everything in between. In essence debate is like a chess match, strategies for victory are well known but choosing which strategy and responding to your opponent is what separates the novices from the Grandmasters.

In that respect, I expect the negative to try multiple arguments during Constructives but by the rebuttal they should be hedging their bets on what they believe are their best winning arguments. A negative that lacks that decisiveness is a clear indicator that the Affirmative has done a successful job at refuting the Negative and thus they have no arguments to bet on to begin with.

In those instances, The affirmative should be declared winners of the round. How the Negative wins is completely up to them.The affirmative may set the table but the Negative chooses what's going to be served.