My name is Manoj Bagul and I’ve been judging Congress for the past three years.

In judging I look for THREE main things.

• First, logical argumentation. If you want to get a point across, it has to make sense and have flow otherwise it will be very diffcult for me to rank properly.
• Second, have evidence that ACTUALLY supports your analysis. Oftentimes, I hear evidence and analysis that does not match up with one another and it feels like you put them together just for the sake of it. Along with that, please cite your evidence so that you can prove its authenticity and credibility.
• Finally, this event is congressional DEBATE not speech. This means two things. First, you should be mentioning other speakers after the first affirmative speech. Second, your questioning blocks are super important so please answer them well and you will get bumped up.

I look forward to great debate, good luck everyone!

I'm KC (They/Them) (email kc.caswell@germantownacademy.org). I debated and judged extensively in college in British Parliamentary-style debate and am familiar with traditional LD and PF. I prefer traditional rounds.

I prefer a round in which:

• Debaters address the central question(s) asked by the topic.
• The contentions are clearly linked to the framework.
• Is thoroughly comparative: Please weigh your arguments clearly against the arguments of your opponents.
• K's are explained at a level accessible for the average reasonable listener. If running a K, please make sure your link is very clear and that the K is clearly incompatible with the opposing case.
• Please don't spread—I vote based on my flow, and for now, I have a hard time flowing spreading.
• If an argument is unresponded to and also relevant to the debate, I will count it as true, although not an automatic win.

JUDGE EMAIL: TINTU.KRISH@GMAIL.COM (TO SHARE CASE BEFORE ROUND)

Hello Debaters,

A few things to keep in mind before the debate.

1. No need to rush. Communicating your thoughts/ideas in a clam and composed manner is very important.
2. Please be courteous and professional.
3. Please stick to the time limit for every round.
4. Please be ready to provide evidence for your claims to Opponent.
5. Please be assertive with your arguments and not aggressive.

All the best. May the best team win.

Cheers,
Krishna

My name is Sushma Chaubey (she/her) and this is my first-time judging Novice LD.

In judging I look for the following in the contestant and their delivery:
1. Speak concisely and clearly in normal pace so that I am able to understand every word you are saying. Do not rush/speed or spread. Communicate your ideas in a calm and composed manner. Assume that the judge is not familiar with the topic so please explain terminology clearly.
2. I assess arguments based on their depth of analysis, logic, and relevance to the topic. Site your evidence so that you can prove its authenticity and credibility. I prioritize the quality of arguments over speed and quantity.
3. Give proper discussion/answer to the points/questions put forth by the other team. Weigh your arguments clearly against the arguments of your opponents. You must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponents.
4. If an argument is not responded to that you have extended, bring it up at the end so I can count it in evaluating the debate.
5. Be courteous and professional and stick to the time limit for each round. Be confident and assertive with your arguments, but not arrogant.
6. In the end, tell me why you should win.

I appreciate all your hard work and wish you all the best for your rounds!

I prefer a loud, clear, confident speaker.

You can speak at any speed, but make sure that you are clear with your arguments

I also enjoy logical arguments.

Add me to the email chain please!: adhupam@gmail.com

A bit about me and my preferences:

• Debated Varsity PF on the National and GA circuit
• Current Freshman in the Huntsman Program @ Penn (Wharton + College of Arts and Sciences)
• Signpost please!
• Please time yourself and each other or let me know and I can.
• Not a huge fan of poorly-read theory/K's but explain yourself clearly if that's your thing! I think theory can def be fun
• Tech > truth
• Want explicit voters in 2A/2NR
• Haven't been in a LD/Policy round in a bit so probably treat me a little like a lay judge but I mainly go off the flow
• Prefer no spreading but if you do, add me to the email chain and I'll keep up
• Have fun!! Debate should not be stressful so let me know anyway I can make the round more comfortable for you
• Love a good framework debate

• Feel free to ask me any questions pre or post-round :)

My name's Adelle, I debated policy for NYU in novice, jv and open divisions running mostly performance and k args. I was a speech kid in high school, so when I came to college I decided to see how the other half lives.

Preferences: I don't love voting on existential scenarios. Your framework should check throughout your arguments, I think perfcon is a voter. If you run theory don't just rattle off your blocks, contextualize. When extending ev, don't just read, engage: dates, author credentials, sources are all meaningful and can help immensely in a close round.

Speaker Points: Fluency and engaging speaking style are key here. I appreciate personality! You can spread, but be mindful about your enunciation and speed - I should still be able to understand every word you are saying.

PF/LD: Don't be shifty with evidence, have sources downloaded before the round and ready to share if prompted.

Above all, be respectful. Debate is a game but in round we still implicate ourselves in the rhetoric we use and the arguments we make.

My email is adelle.fernando@gmail.com if you would like to include me in the email chain or if you have any questions.

My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 4th year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: tyghadiali@gmail.com

First, have fun! Debate is for learning and meant to be enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!

I want CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.

Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. For novices, I like hearing

• worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
• a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
• good signposting
• good rhetoric and speech skills
• demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out

I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.

I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.

Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.

Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points.

Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.

I am a lay judge.

Speak concisely and clearly!

no spreading

New judge, please be slow and clear, weigh arguments clearly and frame the debate for me. In other words, tell me why you should win

My name is Hannah(she/her) and I’m a 4th year LD debater at Lexington High School. I compete on the local and national circuit.

email: guohannah67@gmail.com

Novice:

-Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will likely be an auto loss.

-Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. I will also give reminders but if I can’t flow the speech, I will dock speaker points. Try to signpost often so I can keep track of your arguments.

**If you cannot understand the opponent because of speed, you may tell them to slow down during the speech.

-Spend time on the framework debate! I will usually evaluate it first.

-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why one is more important than the other.

-Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

-Remember to give voters in your final speeches and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-Have fun!

For any questions email me at rishabhh1210@gmail.com

Hi, I am Rishabh Handa. I am a Junior in High School who has competed in Lincoln Douglas at both the Local in New Jersey as well as the national circuit at tournaments such as Yale, Princeton, Harvard and more.

Shortcut

Phil - 1

Theory - 1

T - 1

Tricks - 2

Non-Identity Ks - 2

Identity K's - 3

Policy - 1-2

As a debater, I've read all types of arguments including Larp, Phil, Theory and K's. Overall I recommend you read whatever you are comfortable with. I am Tech > Truth, but I think truer arguments are obviously easier to win on a technical level, and I won't evaluate arguments that are pointed out to be blatantly false. Also all arguments need a claim warrant and impact. If I don't have one of those, I can't vote on the argument.

Some General Notes for Round

• Call me Rish or Rishabh.
• I am good with any speed, though if I cannot understand you I will say clear
• Please keep your own speech and prep times
• Signpost!!! It makes it a lot easier to flow and thus makes my life as a judge a lot easier
• Weigh and give me voting issues - It lets me see the cleanest ballot and prevents me from intervening
• Feel free to email me or ask me any questions post round
• If I hear anything bigoted I will tank speaks, and depending on the offense I will report to tab

Hello everyone! I am a novice judge and this is my first time judging pf. Please speak at reasonable pace- do not spread. I haven’t done extensive research on this resolution, so make your case understandable. Don’t just read out evidence, make sure to explain why your evidence supports your point. Be respectful during debates and avoid any harmful language. Good Luck!

Ask me for my preferences in round, thank you!

Keeping a close flow of the round and preferring a more traditional approach to debate is my style.

I focus on how ethos, pathos, and logos go together to present a cohesive argument.

Although, I am not a fan of spreading, I will not punitively hurt a student's score because of it.

Being consistent, friendly, and grounded in the evidence firm is what I am looking for.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.
2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

Traditional judge, prefer slower speed.

Hi! I'm Ria, a junior at Lexington High School in MA. I've done LD for 3 years and have competed in LD on the national and local circuits.

TLDR: Debate what you're comfortable with and have fun!

Add me to the email chain: 25stu452@lexingtonma.org

Please be respectful in round; any blatantly hateful comments or sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in you being dropped. If you're plain rude I'll probably tank your speaks. Just be kind, chill, and speak clearly and I'll give you good speaks :)

I won't evaluate any new arguments in the 2AR or 2NR, you should use these speeches to really collapse and weigh- you should spell out my ballot for me. Extend your arguments + cards! I can't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for.

Make the round educational- if someone is more inexperienced than you, be polite.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I cannot follow very fast speakers.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

I am a novice judge seeking first to understand the overall flow of your argument and how it connects to your framework...help me, help you!

I prefer a normal conversational speed because if I cannot understand or synthesize your argument than I cannot give you credit for it's validity.

I value clear, well structured, and logical arguments as winning arguments. I favor factual statements over emotional pleas, but well-reasoned topical analysis of any form is ultimately what I'm looking for.

Don't spread, don't speed, don't drop.

Be compelling, convincing, and concise.

Email: apaul@wssd.org.

LD: As a judge, I am looking for a debate that is friendly and respectful of people but will be critical of ideas. I value the truth, which is going to be determined by the debaters and validating or disproving the other side's understanding and truth. I do flow the debate, but if I can't understand what is being said, I can't flow, and you can't win.

PF: When judging PF, I am looking for a debate, which follows a logical and clear argument. Be clear and concise with your points, and remain respectful.

I hope to expand upon this as I develop my paradigm as a judge.

Parent judge. I’ve judged a decent amount but I’d prefer you not to spread. Keep track of your own time. Please give me voters and weigh well.

I prefer you running a traditional case. Basic counter plans are probably fine.
Good luck.

As a judge, my primary focus is on promoting clear communication and substantive engagement within the debating sphere. I prioritize the quality of arguments over speed and quantity, striving to create an environment where participants can effectively convey their ideas while fostering meaningful discourse.

• I value clear and articulate communication over rapid delivery.
• Debaters are encouraged to present their arguments in a manner that is accessible and comprehensible to all participants, ensuring that the essence of their points is effectively conveyed.
• I assess arguments based on their depth of analysis, logical coherence, and relevance to the topic at hand.
• The quality of evidence and the strength of reasoning take precedence over the sheer volume of arguments presented.
• I encourage active engagement with opposing arguments and foster an environment of respectful dialogue.
• I assess arguments based on their adherence to logical reasoning, relevance, and evidence quality.
• Clarity of expression and engagement with opposing viewpoints are key factors in my assessment.
• Personally, I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe it can compromise the clarity of arguments and make it difficult for all participants, including the audience and judges, to fully engage with the debate. I find that a more deliberate and measured approach allows for better comprehension and more meaningful exchanges. While I respect those who choose to employ spreading, it's just not my preferred method of debating.

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years. This is my first time judging Big Questions. I am a psychiatrist accustomed to listening. I will be able to understand and follow your presentation better if you make your points clearly, maintain good eye contact, and enunciate with clarity and appropriate expression, especially if giving a rapid-fire line of reasoning. Quality vs. quantity is important. I can only judge by what I am able hear and understand well.I find well-formulated and supported arguments persuasive. I respect and appreciate your dedication and hard work. Best wishes!

Hi, I'm a junior at BxSci. I've done LD debate since freshman year.

he/him

I prefer if you sent cases. It makes everything easier. My email is razielm@bxscience.edu

Go to Kate Hankin’s paradigm to learn more about how I evaluate the round.

Chirag Shah

First year lay judge

Send me your case ahead of time (crshah77@yahoo.com) so that I can follow along when you speak

Don’t speak fast

Don’t be aggressive/rude to opponents

Be clear with links

Keep track of timing

Warning: Being aggressive or speaking too fast will result in a loss of speaker points.

Hello,

I am a local parent judge who has judged LD, PF, Parliamentary Debate, and Congress on the local, state, and national circuit. I have judged for multiple years of experience, with judging at several national tournaments, including Ridge Debates, UPENN, Harvard, etc.

LD

-Don't spread (I prefer a clear, articulated speech)/signpost

-Good clash between debaters (Proper use of CX time will be looked favorably upon)

-Prefer lay debate but won't be opposed to progressive...However...

-No Ks, Theory, Topicality, policy debate, etc

-If you are going to run phil, make sure it's clearly explained and warranted...I am not too experienced in phil but I can catch on if it's well-explained

-Plans, Disads, and CPs are okay as long as you explain them well

-I am not too technical with LD-specific words so make sure you use more lay terms to explain concepts

-Good Framework debates will be looked favorably upon (You can use more obscure fws as long as you explain well)

Congress

- Adapt to the round based on its specific stage (Constructive, Refutations, Crystallizations)

- Severely look down upon rehash (Always add something new to the debate)

- Everyone has a chance at breaking as long as they do their job

- Weigh the debate, especially if you are a late round speaker

- Explain why your argument/speech is the most important to the round

- Make sure that your use rhetoric, especially for intros, refutations, and conclusions

- Congress is also a debate event, make sure to use Cross X strategically

- Presiding officers are decently high ranked on my ballot

- Along with evidence, always provide a warrant (explain WHY the evidence makes sense)

Regardless of the category, make sure to be respectful, always try your best, and simply enjoy yourself!

Hello! I'm Sophia (she/her), senior debate co-captain at the Brearley School.

I've done both PF and LD throughout high school, definitely more familiar with PF though. I'm familiar with theory, K's, etc. but am more comfortable evaluating trad arguments than prog arguments overall. Assume I am not familiar with the topic so please explain terminology clearly! I'm fine with a bit of speed but please don't spread.

Please number your responses and signpost/use offtime roadmaps to make it easier for me to flow your round. Tell me what you want on my flow and keep my flow neat. All arguments I evaluate must be fully warranted & implicated, and must be present in summary + final focus/

Extend arguments you want me to consider in your summary. I highly recommend collapsing to crystallize the round.

Weighing/impact calc is really important, give me clear voters and tell me why you outweigh using specific weighing mechanisms. Tell me what you win on and why. Be comparative in your weighing & metaweigh.

I won't evaluate cross or look at evidence during/after the round - anything that contributes to my decision must be brought up within your speeches. Please show up on time, preflow before the round starts, and time your own speeches.

Add me to the email chain & feel free to email if you have any questions: sophiaswang@gmail.com

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

I am a parent judge.

When you speak, please do not spreading. Instead, speak clearly, topically, and precisely. You would want every average Joe to understand you as a influential speaker.

For online event, please keep your camara on.

And always, respect.

As a health policy researcher and data scientist for many years working with students, teachers and staff, I am no stranger to clash of ideas. 1) I value speeches that are well organized, focused on links, showing strong logic and ability to anticipate/identify weakness 2) Be respectful and use etiquette. Attack the argument not the person. 3) Speak at a reasonable speed - if you rush, my mind will be stuck in traffic - Have Fun!