For Congressional Debate, my primary focus is on logical arguments that are well-constructed with quality evidence to support your claims. I appreciate rhetoric and impacts, but I will discount scores if these replace analysis and evidence. Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence.

I highly respect constitutional arguments and discount for affirmations of an unconstitutional bill.

It is essential to me that competitors remain in the role of a congressperson, showing respect to the chamber and following proper parliamentary procedure. I encourage everyone to remember to address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times, and to avoid using Mr./Ms. personal titles as they both assume gender identity and may be considered dismissive at times.

I respect competitors who are active in the chamber and strongly disagree with the trend of some competitors to press for a base-2 model. Finally, while our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I highly value presentation skills in congressional debate.

As a parliamentarian, I value a presiding officer who is, of course, familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament. However, I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak. I prefer to remain as quiet as possible giving the PO the control of the chamber. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, makes an error in precedence/recency (though I will certainly give the chamber a chance to catch this first), or to insure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed. However, I do believe these corrections can be done with respect and kindness.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying in play, or if I sense discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or unintentional. I support the NSDA's position that every student deserves a caring and welcoming environment—one that is committed to conditions of fairness, fosters inclusion, affirms identity, celebrates lived experiences, and protects from harassment and discrimination.

Events: I participated in Speech and Debate from 7th grade through high school and college. My primary events were:

• Extemp
• Impromptu
• LD
• PF
• Info
• Congress

While I have only ever competed in POI, I often engaged in peer sessions with speech competitors in my team. Therefore, I feel well equipped to judge any speech or debate events.

Speed: I can handle a quick pace so long as the speaker is clear.

Background:

My name is Kathleen Clark and I have taught high school English for a decade. I started coaching Speech and Public Forum coach this year; my own extra-curricular background is largely in theatre and student government. As an English teacher and general lover of language, my primary focus as a judge is clarity and efficiency of communication. These events emphasize how much our words matter; you should employ them well.

Speech:

For interpretive events, I am all about the nuance. I want to hear every syllable, watch each new idea cross your forehead, listen for the pause that precedes a revelation, witness the development of a fresh idea in your character's mind. Your presentation should cover a range of emotional notes, vary with regards to tempo and volume, and offer a clear, holistic perspective through the piece.

For oratorical events, I look for consistency and clarity. I weigh delivery and content equally; I genuinely believe that what you have to say is important, so the way you say it should be intentional, passionate, and direct.

Public Forum:

This event is defined by the lay judge, and that is my priority. You absolutely must communicate to me, in layman's terms, the merits of your case. I must understand each word you say and the data you present. I will flow your arguments, so it is your responsibility to undo your opposing team's case; if you do not address their contentions plainly, I will continue to consider them as valid. Be polite to each other!

Debate:

• Do not spread if you can avoid it. I am Hard of Hearing, and while I use hearing aids enunciation is key to me understanding you, and your opponents deserve to hear all you have to say.
• Be polite to your opponents. I will dock points if you are disrespectful.
• Try to keep it out of the weeds if you can, I appreciate substantive points of clash unless technical points are necessary.
• Sign posting! Please! Ill be flowing.

MY BACKGROUND:

• I am a government major at George Mason. I have competed in parli, LD, PoFo, Impromptu, Extemp, and varying interps. I have judged all debates (LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy, Congress)
• I've worked in both chambers of Congress and the Whitehouse. I love government and know a lot about it! I care a lot about information accuracy, but care even more that opponents catch inaccuracies.
• I am the captain at the George Mason University Speech team. Hit me up if you want more info on our program!

If you have questions, feel free to email me! mizer@gmu.edu

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

I am a debate coach from Colgan HS with experience judging in LD and PF for the last eight years. I prefer more traditional debate. I place emphasis on evidence and analysis and frown against spreading. I value respect for your opponent and to the judge. Please be mindful of language that comes across as attacking or offensive.

I am a Lincoln-Douglas Coach.

Off-Time road maps are fine.

I most likely have a broad understanding of the LD topic you are debating. I will be flowing your debate, and generally make my decision based on who is able to support their contentions and attack their opponent's contentions with the best reasoning.

I prefer students to speak at an understandable rate: not spreading.

I expect students to treat each other with respect, and shake hands and say "good debate" or something similar at end of round. If you can't shake hands for whatever reason, any other polite form of acknowledgement is appropriate.

If I make a face during the debate don't read too much into it- I'm usually trying to remember what I was writing down, not reacting to something you said. :)