Don’t be annoying, don’t be mean, Don’t be stupid. Just be good!

I've done congressional debate for the past three years, I'm extremely experienced in the event and have pretty much competed at every level and tournament you can think of. I have a ton of experience in the debate space. Just remember to be kind and respectful.

Congress

Speech structure:
Honestly whatever you think fits the round the best. As long as it's organized in some way that is understandable to me idrc.

Argumentation:
Know what ur talking about. I will be flowing. I do check sources (don't cap I can usually tell)

Speaking:
Everyone speaks differently. As long as I can hear you and fluency is not an issue, you get the checkmark from me. Be confident, professional, and don't be afraid to show a little personality!

^^^ I will always rank the best speaker and the person I thought did the best from an argumentative perspective. Sometimes those are the same people, sometimes they aren't.

For POs: You start at my three and can only move up to my 2. You can move up or down based on how I think you are running the round. If you make too many mistakes I'm not opposed to giving you 9s. POing is a great and strategic way to break, but make sure you are good at it pls, otherwise it def hurts the round as a whole and can impact others' abilities to give x number of speeches.

PF/LD

Consider me a lay judge.

Speech

Be clear, speaking is more important here, even in Extemp. I'm forgiving to fluency breaks in extemp, less so in prepared events.

Hi everyone, my name is Aaron Piehl (pronounced peel), I’m a Junior at Tompkins, and this is my third year of debate. I primarily do congress, but I also do a good amount of extemp and worlds. Overall, I have a good basis of understanding in things like PF and Oratory, so I wouldn’t say I’m a ‘lay judge.’ For every event, the three key things I value are, A- Speaking must be clear and consistent. Ik congress isn’t a speaking event, but speaking matters in congress almost as much as extemp. B- Every thing must be explained. Use the feynmen technique, if you can’t explain it to a 2 year old, you don’t understand it. If someone asks you ‘why’ and you don’t know the answer, you don’t understand the content. I should be able to keep asking ‘why’, and you should be able to answer, leave nothing unwarranted. And C- be respectful.

Congress

Rhetoric

-Don’t copy rhetoric. I’ve watch a lot of congress rounds, so I will know. Plus it’s lame when you don’t make it

-Rhetoric should serve a purpose, make it impactful, don’t just have rhetoric to have it. Your rhetoric shouldn’t be able to be used in any other bill.

-Use emphasis, pauses, overall just make your speaking strong to fit your lines

Refutation

-Refute the important parts of the debate. There aren’t ‘dropped arguments’ in congress, so spend your time analyzing the main points of contention in the debate.

-you need more and more ref and weighing as you go through the debate. The first speech has none, the final speech is 100% ref, so you need to understand your purpose with in the round

-When you’re attacking points, make sure to understand their logic, and attack it. Ref isn’t about sources or impacts, just explain why their warrants are wrong

POs

-POs start at 4. If you do a beautiful job, have great timing and good round control, I’ll give you a 3. Make it incredible, maybe a 2. But if you break precedence a few times, start to make mistakes, or lose control of the chamber, you’ll get a 5 or worse

Speaking

-In congress, your speaking can be tailored to you. As long as it’s not completely boring, speak how ever you want. It can be funny, impactful, casual, or passionate, just don’t be boring.

-Speaking is important, but it won't carry your ranks.

-don’t read of your pad. Speaking should come from the heart, not the page.

Argumentation

-Constructive arguments must set up a frame, how the bill changes that status quo, and impacts. I love FFF or Squo/Effect/Impact structure, but if you can take a 2 point speech and do it right, go for it.

-Have unique arguments, but not outlandish. If it's a bill to clean up the ocean, and your an aff, and you come up there talking about the environment entirely on a 5th aff, you'll get downed. Having unique impacts doesn't mean you have a unique argument. If you have the exact same warrants about NGOs in Equitorial Guinea as someone else, but you tie the impact to women's rights and they talked about energy security, y'all still pretty much had the same argument.

-You should be able to bring your argument into the round perfectly, add new warranting that extends your side and knocks down the other.

Final notes

Have fun, be respectful, don't do stupid stuff

Extemp

Speaking

-Make it good