Hello! I'm Stuart Beal.

First, a bit on my debate background. I did four years of pretty traditional traditional high school policy debate (competed almost exclusively on the UIL circuit in Texas). Now, I compete in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate for Columbia University in New York City. (Most of the following information is related to policy debate, but I feel that my judging philosophy is better communicated through a more specific discussion of policy debate issues than it would be if I tried to generalize my philosophy to styles of debate I'm less familiar with.)

I've judged more kritiks than I've ever encountered myself in round, so when it comes to those types of arguments, I am slightly unfamiliar, but not in the slightest opposed to hearing them. Honestly, at times I think the fact that I have less exposure to k debate makes a lot of k arguments more convincing to me. Other than that, I will also say that I have less experience with super technical CP debate. If things get intense technique wise, the team that's able to more effectively explain to me what's going on is probably going to be the team that will win the argument.

Past all that, I have a very open judging philosophy in that I will value the arguments that you tell me to value. Even widely held assumptions like T/framework taking first priority because they're procedural arguments need to be communicated to me. If aff turns T and explains why topical AFFs are bad and neg doesn't respond, T will become an aff advantage. I will never make a team win because of some sort of base assumption about how policy debate works that I personally hold.

I make decisions based on world comparison, based on which world, aff or neg, is a better one. I'll do this comparison with the impacts and weighing communicated to me by both teams and I will only intervene to weigh arguments myself if there is absolutely no other way for me to evaluate the round.

In terms of the argument preferences I do hold, I like fun T arguments and sometimes get annoyed by CPs.

No onto speaking points. I will flow every speech in the round and would like to be able to flow without having to check the speech doc for tags and authors. Highest speaker points will be given to the speaker that forces me to check the speech doc the least amount of times. So, signposting really well and speaking clearly on tags and authors is the easiest way to receive high speaks from me. Additionally, passionate speaking and intentional/convincing delivery will be rewarded.

I will dock speaker points for unwarranted attitude. I'm totally fine with things getting a little petty and heated, but there's a line and crossing it will result in docked speaks. Also, in addition to being too prickly to the other team, if I catch any disparaging comments being made from one partner to the other, speaks will be docked.

Additionally, and this should be obvious, any explicitly harmful language used whether it be sexist, racist, ableist, queerphobic etc. will result in speaks being docked and tournament officials being contacted.

Hi, this is Ajay Bisht. I am a parent judge from California and have experience judging congressional debate at local, state and national tournaments. In congressional debate, I look forward to the following things-

1) Quality of speech and facts - bring new facts to the table and refer to fellow senators if they have already raised your points

2) Presentation skills - be clear, loud, assertive and respectful

3) Responses to arguments and questions- again be respectful here

4) PO- expect to run the debate with equal opportunity and without any bias towards race or sex.

Lastly, please ensure that the speech is your own and you have in-depth knowledge of the bill.

All the very best.

I'm a Manhattan High senior and have been debating for all of high school. I am 100% a flow judge. If you drop something and the other team calls it out, you automatically lose the argument. Please signpost pretty please :))) I'm honestly open to any argument!

CPs- love CPs! I used to run these all the time. The only thing about CP's is that I don't like when they contradict your other arguments. Please have good solvency cards for your CP. Also, please don't run abusive CPs.

DAs- DA's are good. I also love to run these. Try to get a specific link, but if you can't, I'm still down to vote for the DA.

Ks- not my fav arg. I can understand them and will vote on them, but I'm not the biggest fan.

T- love T. If the neg wins on this, they will win the debate. Make sure you extend everything on T.

On case- PLEASE RUN ON CASE. I BEG YOU. When the aff doesn't respond to each argument and you call it out, it is so satisfying. I love on case if you can't tell.

Congress: I'm all about charisma. If you make a good joke, I'll love it. Also, please do not repeat others' points in your speeches. Also, I love neg arguments that attack the mechanisms of the bill/resolution.

I'm a 4x national qualifier in public forum and congress. I'm also a 4x policy and congress state qualifier.

Hi, I´m Colton. I´m currently a senior in high school to graduate in 2025. I have 2 years of debate experience, mainly in PF and LD, but I have also dabbled in congress, foreign extempt, and various other speech events. Please navigate to the event I´m judging you for.

Lincoln Douglas:

Things I dislike:

• Spreading: I will not vote for you if I can't understand what you're saying. Not only this but spreading inherently puts up a barrier in debate.

• Bigotry: Don´t be racist, sexist or homophobic. Self explanatory.
• Concealment of facts: Don´t lie just to win a round. I will check your sources or citations if they sound sketchy.

Things I am neutral towards:

• K´s: I don´t have any problem with them, as long as they're set up well and coherent (Which most are not)
• Counter plans and plans: Same with Ks. If your plan does not fall under the resolution, I am not voting for you.
• Sources: Obviously, you need sources in debate. However, I am not going to vote for you just because you had more evidence for something. Your points also need logic behind them and throwing mindless numbers at me doesn't make me want to vote for you if it's not contextualized and strong.

Things I like to see:

• Framework: If you don´t give me anything to judge it makes the round a lot more subjective then id like it to be. Telling me how and why the round should be weighed is great.
• Philosophy: LD is an applied philosophy debate. If you can explain a philosophical topic and apply it to your case I´m going to favor your argument because it has a moral basis behind it.
• Good values debate: If you have to take anything from my paradigm, just know im going to mainly vote on the values/frame work debate.

PF:

Things I dislike:

• Basically the same as what I said for LD.
• Weighing mechanisms: CBA is inherent to PF. Im most likely not going to buy frame work arguments in PF.
• Counter plans and plans: It's against the rules of PF and also it destroys the purpose of public forum. Don´t do it.

Things I like to see:

• Sources: If your argument doesn't have a warrant to it, im not voting for it in PF. Obviously it needs logic behind it, but evidence is more important in public forum then any other event.
• Weighing: Giving me clear voters and reasons as to why you won the round makes my job easier and makes me more likely to vote for you.

Any speaking event:

Basically just speak best and know your event. I dislike road mapping speeches because it takes away the flow from the speech, but im most likely not going to vote against you if you do it. Knowing your event means not doing informative with an oratory, and oratory with an informative. The point of an informative is to inform and the point of an oratory is persuade. If you give a speech, make sure I can take something away from it or be called to action by the end of it. Otherwise just have fun and be the most entertaining.

Congress:

Congress is supposed to be a ¨debate¨ event and I will treat it as such (somewhat). I´m not going to rank you high just because you gave the most amount of speeches in a round, you will be judged by the quality of your speeches themselves. 1 good quality > 3 bad ones. I treat questions the same way. Referencing other peoples speeches in your speeches, or asking good questions that clearly point out the holes in your opponents speeches is a good way to get a high ranking. Overall just make yourself stand out and speak well.

I have been a speech and debate parent for five years, a volunteer coach for two years, and an assistant coach for one year. I have judged speech, public forum, and congressional debate over the five years. I am a Tufts University graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a Wayne State University graduate with a Master's Degree in Social Work. I have been a Licensed Independent School Social Worker for 23 years working with K-12th grade students, parents and staff. I did not debate in high school or college but I have gained experience through judging and coaching. While judging, I work to provide feedback of strengths and weaknesses of individuals and teams. I look for the combination of content and presentation as well as debate etiquette and composure. I look for clash, well written rebuttal speeches, fair questioning rounds, confidence, and effective delivery. I also look for strong data and impacts to determine the winning team of the debate.

Good Luck!

I am the head coach of a middle school speech and debate program. I have taught public speaking for 7 years, judged speech and debate on the high school and collegiate levels for multiple years, and coached a competitive middle school team for 2 years. I serve as a regional ambassador for Northwest Florida and work to support new coaches and train judges. My specialties are Congress and Interpretation Events.

For IE events, I look for coherent, organized writing and cuttings. At the highest levels, the technical skills in your speaking will be scrutinized. Clean transitions and movement, clear cuttings, and good characterization with distinct voice, posture and mannerisms.

In debate events, I value good speaking with clear, coherent arguments. I have degrees in Political Science and History. I have taught public school for 12 years and worked as a trial paralegal through college.

I'm pretty open-minded in general, but vulgar or overly profane statements for pure shock value won't win me over, especially if it isn't age appropriate. Make sure your use of profanity or illicit content actually contributes to the overall performance or argument being made.

Do not spread. If I cannot follow your argument, I will not vote in your favor. Debate that cannot be understood is pointless so save the gamesmanship for someone who prefers that style please.

Use of evidence is important. Not all evidence is created equally so don't throw blogs and websites out as proof of anything that you say. You should be using valid sources and prepared to provide your evidence if I ask for it.

Evidence itself does not win an argument. The impact wins for me. Why does this matter? Why should I care? How does it impact my world? If you can convince me that something has a direct impact on me, I will vote for you.

Don't speak in shorthand. Assuming that others will understand your jargon for arguments or citations isn't good speaking.

Command the room. Use movement and emphatic gestures.

Don't be rude. You can make good points without belittling anyone else. It is ok to call out the absurdity of an argument, but not the intelligence of the person making it.

Excited to hear what the future holds. I look forward to hearing what these bright young minds have to say. Looking forward to a great debate.

I have judged congress multiple times and I know how the rounds should work and be judged. I love clash as long as it stays respectful. I am going to look for passionate speaking and I would like to be convinced through how passionate you are on the topic. I judge tech over truth, meaning I am going to go into the round, and I will not think about any other previous knowledge I have on the topics.

I want to emphasize the importance of respect in this competition. It is not just about winning or losing, but about having respect for your opponents, for the judges, and most importantly yourself. Treat every individual with kindness and understanding, regardless of their performance. Remember, we are all on this journey together. Please do not discriminate against anybody else in the chamber/round as that will be an automatic loss. Everybody comes from different backgrounds, and everybody has different beliefs and those need to be respected.

I want to encourage you to take your time and speak clearly, ensuring that your words are not only heard but felt by those who are listening. Let your passion and emotions shine through your performance, captivating the audience and judges.

Have fun and don't stress out! You're going to do great!!!!

Hi! My name is Sarayu Cheemalapati (she/her). I graduated high school in PA in 2023 and am currently a student at Pitt studying Political Science. I debated all through middle school and high school, having topped the TOC bid scoreboard and the NSDA National Rankings in Congressional Debate during my senior year, as well as semifinaled TOC and NSDA Nats and placed 4th at NCFL. I also have experience coaching, judging and competing in World Schools, Big Questions, Informative, Impromptu, and Extemp.

I absolutely do not accept any form of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, ableism, islamophobia or any type of hate. If I hear any type of this in any way, you will be dropped on my ballot and I will report you to the tournament immediately.

Congress:

TLDR: I am 55% presentation and 45% argumentation, ultimate ranking comes down to doing your job as a speaker based on when you speak, refuting is important. If a bill has one-sided debate, flip or move on.

Presentation: Make it sound like you are persuading me to pass or fail. At the end of the day, anyone can have good arguments, but presenting them well is what is mainly going to help me as a judge differentiate you from other competitors in the round. Add personality into your speaking! Don't be monotone and make it look like you're just reciting. Be funny, tell jokes, do whatever makes you a unique speaker!

Argumentation: Try to provide a card for arguments where you NEED it. Today, there are arguments that many can run with logic, but be careful. Don't rehash other people's arguments unless you are using it to weigh or to crystal. It shows how much you are actually paying attention to the round. I will pay attention to well-crafted and structured arguments with good rhetoric. Also, structure your arguments depending on when you are speaking! I rank based on if you fulfill your role as a speaker/debater given the time at which you are speaking (ex. strong constructive for authorship, crystals for late round, etc.)

Flipping: I will always give those flipping a higher rank than an okay speech on the same side in a row. There are exceptions to this, but it's simple. I do not think anyone wants to hear to same aff argument for an hour.

Refutation: One of the most important things to me in getting my rank is refutation. Anything after the first aff should refute, recognizing their opponents and telling me why they are wrong. Strong constructives without any reference to any of your competitors, in my opinion, only hold some sort of value until the second neg, otherwise, it does not contribute anything to the round.

Presiding Officers: In order to rank high, POs should run the chamber in a fast, efficient and unbiased way. I trust you to be able to follow the procedure you set, follow the standard/tournament rules, and make minimal mistakes, especially when you make it known for the start that you want to preside/run in a PO election in order to preside. POs tend to rank generally high from me if you do your job. It is simple: the less I think about you during the round (in a bad way), the better ballot you will get from me. I will probably let some of these rules slide if you are the only one willing to preside in a round/being forced to preside.

Any questions about in round issues, feedback, paradigm, etc, email me: cheemalapatis@gmail.com. Be confident and have fun!

Congress paradigm:

In general

-----------------

Present logical arguments

- links

- good evidence

Rhetoric

- moves your speech forward

-sounds good

Please have impacts, your argument has very little weight without impacts

Authorship/1st neg:

1st aff should spend a lot of time defining the problem in the squo and spend a lot of it with the sections of the bills that solve the issue. Make it easy to understand.

1st Neg: Mention 1st aff speaker at least once and make your argument refute them.

Same requirements as 1st aff otherwise.

Mid round: Must have refutation, must present arguments that interact with the round. This is where you need to offer new perspectives because this is in the round when it gets boring.

Late/Crystals: The biggest part of your speech should be on weighing. Pretty hard to do in congress with so many arguments present. But focus on the opponent's best arguments. It is also fine to add new info as long as it hurts the opponent's efforts.

PO paradigm: Regular ranks for PO is 1-6, however, I will rank PO's 2-5. Unless the round has no clear winner, then I am fine voting PO as 1st. Only if you're a very good po bc po already op.

1. Most important: Move the round efficiently

- do things quickly

- know procedures

Prelims:

10% legislating

- Motions, Point of orders, etc

60% argument

- Just how good your argument is

30% rhetoric

- Good intros

- good rhetoric that ties in with your argument

- pauses, gestures

Quarters/Semis/Finals

- 70% argument

- 30% rhetoric

Ahoy!

I'm Andy Choy from Lovejoy High School in Texas. Contrary to its etymology, Lovejoy has no love, no joy, and is barely a high school, but debate keeps me alive.

There are a couple of things you should never do in round. Being derogatory or blatantly abusive will result in a DFL/loss and zero speaker points. If you have any safety concerns, please feel free to inform me if comfortable. Providing absolutely no evidence will also likely lead to a loss and zero speaks. Debates should typically be topical. If the content of your speech is three contextless minutes of Dhar Mann videos, you'll probably want to reprep that speech.

"Good luck, don't suck." - Jake Cosio

Congressional

Argumentation

• It's okay if there isn't one, but a concise thesis statement outlining your argumentation helps your rank.
• Provide a causal explanation for your empirical evidence. Tell me how your evidence proves your claim. It strengthens your line of reasoning.
• Cite evidence! "An assumption is an assumption because the assumption doesn't have evidence. That's why it's an assumption!" - Tommy Nichol
• Evidence is best cited by organisation and exact date if possible. Credibility matters, so feel free to include author names and credentials in appositives.
• Speeches should build on the session's existing debate. If yours does not, adapt it! There is always something to contribute.
• The way you structure your speech does not matter to me at all. In contrast, how convincing your argumentation is does.
• You need not confine your speech to the idea of constructive, rebuttal, and crystal. A strong speech often includes aspects of all three.
• I hold questioning in high regard because it is the only time you can immediately defend your argumentation against rebuttals. Do not question with the intent to affirm your own side. Number of questions < constructiveness of questions

Rhetoric

• Pirating your speech from other debaters => "You are without doubt the worst pirate I've ever heard of." => Getting dropped
• Do not glue your face to your speech pad for the entire duration of your speech.
• Using AGDs relatable to the topic of debate helps your rank.

Notes

• I award speech points 3 or higher as long as your speech is not abusive.
• Congressional debate =/= congressional politicking

Public Forum

Email for the chain (but not for the spam): andyc30503@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but I will not vote for your argumentation if I cannot understand or verify it.

Consider me a flow judge. Please disclose. I more often than not will have enough topic knowledge, but please don't assume I know everything. Speed is acceptable, but don't spread outright. I'll let you know if your pacing is too fast. Clash with your opponent's case is expected during rebuttal, summary, and final focus. Passionate delivery is rare in PF, so a little passion is appreciated.

+0.5 speaks for taking notes during the RFD

+0.5 speaks if you play a national anthem before round that I fail to identify

Hi!! My name is Elizabeth Falcone, I am going into my senior year at Lincoln Southwest High School in Lincoln, Nebraska and have debated congressionally for the past 3 years.

Congress:

• have some decorum! it's important to follow PO rules &https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf
• Present: Clearly, loudly, & respectfully
• Debate: Respond to arguments made in the round & don't rehash (repeat the points or evidence of another without adding to the debate in some significant way)
• Involvement: Ask questions whenever you can of other debaters, make motions, & flow the round
• have a golly good time & be nice to each other

• sources should have a year & author's last name (at minimum) and should not have the month or day (unless you can justify it's inclusion via relevance)
• PO's: I will rank you, make sure you are running an efficient and equitable chamber. I will likely be keeping track of presidency and recency as well to keep things in check.

Congress kid-turned-judge, be warned:

Don't lie, you know that Congress is a speech event as much as it is a debate event. If you win on flow but your delivery and rhetoric are bad, you'll fall down my ballot. If you are the best orator I've ever seen but your arguments have no weight, then you'll fall down my ballot. Good debaters do both!

Every Congress kid complains that people can't take risks in rounds. Do it. If it's corny or ingenuine then you'll probably get dropped, but take an effective and strategic risk in round and I might vote on it.

I wrote this in 10 minutes so it's not that deep, just don't be bad, be the best, and you'll probably win.

As far as argumentation goes I like a good balance between technical legislation attacks and plan implementation arguments. I would consider the circuit I come from more traditional. Meaning I look for quality over quantity. Remember congress is a game of standing out give me niche arguments. I don ´ t like generic points, to me they show a lack of understanding and skill. Same goes for Cross examination don ´ t just ask a question to ask a question make sure it's intentional I want to see you utilize the info into speeches. Furthermore, speaking skills and speech content are weighed with equal importance, give me balance. Respect is very important to me. Additionally, I will not condone interruption or plain pettiness towards each other especially your presiding officer. It ´ s also important to make movements especially hand gestures helpful not hindering. Keep a good moderate tone no unnecessary shouting but I still want to hear you clearly. As far as motions and voting go make your movements and decisions clear to everyone, especially the PO. Finally, I personally like to see well done amendments. But most importantly I want everyone to be proud of themselves for making it this far and have fun.

'ello mates!You are now viewing the paradigm of Andrew King!

General Notes

• I tend to keep this section of my paradigm updated frequently, and it is subject to change
• If you’re in any round of debate: don’t act like you rule the world and that you don’t think this isn’t some kind of game that we all want to win.
• Don’t be a bum. (Kinda goes with point 2)
• I will rank you lower if you are unprofessional in round. This goes both ways: trying to be funny and causing distractions or thinking so highly of yourself you talk down to your opponents.

Congressional Debate

If you are in one of my congressional debate rounds, I judge based on the reliability of your sources (e.x. is it from an academic source or is it cited based off of quora?) but not the amount of your sources. If you can prove through common sense that your opposition's point does not stand, I will rank you higher. But! your "common sense" should be reliable and not have any holes in it.

If you are a P.O. in my round, do not expect to automatically be ranked top 6. Prove to me that you are competent at your job and you can handle anything the chamber throws at you and you will be ranked higher. Fail to do so and slow down the chamber due to numerous and repeated mistakes, I will rank you lower. TL;DR, know what you're doing before you P.O!

In questioning, I want to see that you know every in and out detail regarding your case. You should answer all questions confidently and avoid shouting over / cutting other people off. If you do so repeatedly, I will rank you lower. Everyone in the chamber deserves a voice and nobody comes off as a strong leader (or congressperson) if debate devolves into a screaming match.

I know it seems like I've said you have to be perfect to rank higher and, while it certainly helps, most people aren't perfect. However, by remaining confident, calm, and collected you can ensure that you gain high speaks and a high ranking from me!

As for myself, I have debated both locally and nationally in the past two years. I have attended Glenbrooks, Dowling, NSDA Nationals 2024, Wisconsin State and a whole host of other congress tournaments that I probably shouldn't get into on this paradigm.

TL;DR

If you have gotten nothing from my paradigm read the following!

Remain confident, calm, and collected, and I will rank you high.

I'm Andrew King and that's the bottom line, cuz' the King said so!

Congressional Debate Paradigm

Hello! My name is Matthew Klacik, and I am a judge in Congressional Debate. I was a competitor for 4-years, in addition to doing US Extemp for 2-years, and International Extemp for 1. I was a 4-year state qualifier, in addition to being a National Senate qualifier, ranking in the Top 100 in the nation (Top 0.1%). My Junior and Senior year I was ranked #1 in the District, and my Senior year I took 1st Place and Best PO at every in-season tournament.

In addition to my double major, I am minoring in Political Science with a focus in Constitutional Law. My experience in Congressional Debate along with my studies help to ensure I am well-qualified to be a judge for you.

If you have any questions don’t hesitate to come ask! I will be more than happy to answer any questions!

Evaluation Criteria

1. Presentation

1. Delivery effectiveness

2. Tone and volume variation

3. Use of meaningful movement and gestures

2. Sources

1. Effective incorporation of reliable sources

2. Proper quoting of sources

3. Construction

1. Easy to follow

2. Well organized

3. Evident understanding of legislation

4. Defense & Support

1. Effective defense of speech content during questioning

2. Effective support of speech content during questioning

3. Further development of content during questioning

Speech Scoring Guidelines

1. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

2. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

3. Casual presentation, minimal sources, ineffective support

4. Casual presentation, minimal sources, generally effective support

5. Professional presentation, reasonable sources, effective support

6. Professional presentation, exceptional sources, effective support

Presiding Officer Scoring Guidelines

1. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

2. Assigned only as Penalty in accordance with OSDA Guidelines

3. Lacked professionalism and understanding of procedure, and failed to maintain efficiency

4. Casual nature, minimal understanding of procedure, generally inefficient

5. Professional nature, good understanding of procedure, fairly efficient

6. Professional, nature, excellent understanding of procedure, highly efficient

*Note: These are general guidelines to better interpret your score in addition to provided written feedback. These guidelines may not accurately represent the reason for the score provided.

Ranking Criteria

1. Overall Performance

1. Overall effectiveness of speeches

2. Overall effectiveness of questions

2. Overall Speaking Quality

1. Average quality of speeches

2. Average quality of presented arguments

3. Overall Participation

1. Attempts to Speak

2. Attempts to Question

3. Attempts to Motion

4. Overall Leadership (Tie-Breaker)

1. Attempts to lead the chamber in a desired direction

Presiding Officer

1. Overall Performance

1. Overall effectiveness of leading the Chamber

2. Overall Participation

1. Overall ability to manage the round without error

3. Overall Speaking Quality

1. Overall maintenance of procedure and decorum standards

Congress

The main things I look for during Congress is:

Speeches and Answering Questions:
Basic Speaking Skills (Eye Contact, Hand Gestures, Vocal Inflections, ect.)
Is the speech original and or creative? (AGDs!)
Is the speech relevant to the round? (Clash, Adding On, ect)
Is evidence sources from reputable and recent sources?
Is the response concise and relevant?
Is the response effective at defending your stance/argument?

Asking Questions:
Is the question relevant to the speech?
Do your questions add substance to the debate?

Chairing:
I tend to rank a good chair favorably, as the chamber would not function, much less efficiently, without a good chair.
Is precedence properly and efficiently followed?
Is the house run fairly, efficiently, and effectively?
Are members of the chamber properly reigned in? (speech time, questioning time, ect)
Is a clear knowledge of parliamentary procedure demonstrated?

For Congress: One of the most important things is control of the room. In my opinion, this is what Congress is all about. People who carry themselves with such confidence as if they're the best in the room often are. This should be showcased in both your speeches and questions. Speeches ought to command attention. If you discuss something because it's urgent, let the room feel just how urgent it is. Different tones depend on the person and speaking style, but it's nice for people to have a distinct tone/speaking style throughout the match. I appreciate something unique, whether a line or an action. These create memorability, which is important in Congress. Of course, coherent argumentation throughout is expected, but equally important to that is presentation. Good rebuttals and crystallizations also impress me. Speakers shouldn't treat all their speeches as if they're first speeches, especially if what they want to say what was already said. Every speech given being prewritten is a bad look, and should be balanced out with rebuttal and crystallization to show-well roundedness in congressional ability and set you apart as a superior speaker.

For PF/LD/Extemp: A good crystallization goes a long way. If you think there's a reason you won the debate, don't merely mention it, emphasize its importance to me. Knowing exactly how to balance arguments you want to continually push with constant rebuttal in a way where everything gets time proportional to how much it deserves makes a speech.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for over 5 years. I hope this paradigm tells you a bit more about what I'm looking for.

If you deliver a speech I already heard a different competitor give before, I will give you a lower rank. There is no good reason to copy your teammate's speeches, especially at prestigious bid tournaments. This goes for authorships/sponsorships, too.

PRESENTATION Congress is partially a speech event. Your presentation and delivery will factor into my judging. I love when people take more interesting, performative approaches that break up the monotony of a congress round. Please don't speak too quickly. I will hold it against you if you are reading too much from your pad and have poor eye contact. You should be familiar enough with the content of your speech to not be completely dependent on your pad. I have nothing against electronics. An iPad instead of a legal pad is perfectly fine as long as you don't let it hamper your performance.

CONTENT If you are making claims, make sure they are substantiated with evidence, especially if they are provocative or important new claims in the round. Round adaptation is extremely important. If you're just saying the same things as the previous five speakers before you, I have no reason to give you a good rank. Debaters have an obligation to engage with, build on, and refute what has been said by others in the round.

Always 1. link to the bill and 2. terminalize your impacts. Every speech needs to explain how passing this bill specifically causes a distinct harm or benefit. I don't have strict requirements for how you structure your speeches because I think that stifles innovation in this event, as long as it's a clear, understandable, effective speech.

RHETORIC I love an interesting rhetorical narrative. I think cookie cutter intros are boring. In the best case, each speech has an introduction relevant to the bill or even what has been previously said in the round. Rhetoric is not a substitute for substance. I've heard many brilliant rhetorical performances with very little content, and as much as I enjoy them, I can't rank them very high in the context of a congress round.

PRESIDING OFFICERS
I always rank competent POs well. A congress round can't run without a PO, and I will never punish someone who knows what they're doing for stepping up to perform this vital function. Please don't PO if you don't know what you're doing. Yes, everyone has to PO for the first time at some point, but you should still be coming prepared and as someone who is already familiar with how congress works. POing should not be a cop-out for being underprepared.

Some notes for novices/people who are new to congress:

• Memorize parts of your speech
• If you're speaking later in the round, don't just deliver the speech you came prepared with - adapt!
• Be prepared to switch sides on a one-sided bill: you're doing the chamber and your judges a favor
• Be courteous: don't use parliamentary procedure as a tool to exclude or disadvantage others
• Enjoy yourself! Winning 1st place doesn't mean much if you didn't have fun

As a judge, I prioritize clarity, logic, and evidence-based arguments. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their ideas, engage with their opponents' arguments, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic. I evaluate debates based on the strength of arguments, rather than personal beliefs or biases. My goal is to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and grow as critical thinkers.

Conflict: I don't have any.

Contact: muideenpopoola1010@gmail.com

Lax parent judge don’t use overly techy language that I won’t understand. I did LD and extemp in High school.

Hi, I'm Emilia! I graduated from Phoenix Country Day School in 2024. I mainly competed in Congress and Impromptu, but I do have experience in Extemp and various interp events. I've been involved in Speech & Debate since 2017.

Congress:

I'll mainly judge off of confidence, analysis, and fluency, mostly in that order.

Some other things:

• Don't read off of your legal pad. It's better to be animated and looking around the room and end up making a couple mistakes over looking at your pad the whole time.
• On that note: I do have a slight preference for legal pads over notebooks/printed out papers/clipboards/iPads/etc, but I won't drop you as long as you're comfortable enough with your content to avoid having to stare at your preferred object of aid. (In general, writing down your speech will help you remember it better. It's a good thing to get into the habit of doing.)
• Funny intros are great. Bonus points if the intro sets up a thematic style for the entire speech/session. But use discretion; don't use a funny intro for a serious topic.
• This should be a given, but I'll put it in here anyway: don't make up your evidence. Using data from before 2020 isn't ideal but is 1000x better than lying
• Know where your speech belongs. If you can judge roughly when you should give a speech and are able to put that judgement into action, you're in a good spot. More on what kinds of speeches to give when here
• Signpost!! I'm a big fan of the Congress triangle. Don't stand in the same spot the entire time you're speaking, but don't move unnecessarily either
• If you're a captivating enough speaker that the entire room drops what they're doing and pays attention to you, congrats. Barring any serious mistakes, you've probably got my 1. I think that the ability to "have the room" is an ideal that every Congressional debater should strive for, and I admire anyone who's able to do so.
• I reward POs. I'll always rank the PO within breaks unless they're unbelievably bad at their job. Bonus points if you agree to PO when nobody else wanted to.
• Have fun!! This can be a very fun event, enjoy yourself!!

Impromptu:

• Be confident!! Confidence sets you apart in any event, but especially in Impromptu
• Come up with varied examples. Hearing about a historical example is fun and interesting once, and completely loses its luster by the 2nd or 3rd time. You can talk about pretty much anything you want in this event. Take advantage of that.
• Keep personal examples as your intros; you should be able to think of examples that don't involve yourself for your main 3 points

If you have any questions or want more detailed feedback, don't hesitate to stop me if you see me or email me at emiliasafirdebates@gmail.com. I'm always happy to help you out a little extra :)

Hey, i currently do high school congress but here’s basically what im looking for.

At the end of the day, the speaker the provides the most convincing speech will get my 1. The way I think about it is that the speaker that would theoretically win my vote on the bill is the best in the round.

There are a bunch of different ways that you can do this so I’ll go over them, but ideally you should be good at all elements of congress.

First, your arguments should be good and make logical sense as well as having data to back up what you’re saying. Be concise and clear, I shouldn’t have to do any of the mental lifting at all because that’s your job. Links and logical explanations are extremely important. I value arguments that show a clear net-harm or net-benefit and has important impacts. If you’re arguing something like constitutionality or “this bill doesn’t do enough” then you won’t get a good rank from me. The longer that the round goes on the more you should refute the biggest arguments from the other side. Don’t avoid the arguments of others, i’ll notice if you’re attacking the low hanging fruit just so that you have ref. In the mid-round, you should be clarifying any confusion in the debate and adding a new perspective to make you stand out. In the late-round, weigh arguments and showcase to me that your side has won the debate and tell me why I should care.

Second, you should have strong presentation, fluctuate your voice and go back and forth between a conversational and impactful tone when appropriate. Do what’s right for you and don’t pretend to be someone you’re not. If you’re charming and funny, then show it off. If you’re a more serious speaker, then be serious. Don’t be boring and keep my interest, i should always want to see where your speech is going and you should keep my attention throughout.

Third, I like creative rhetoric. if you’re able to phrase boring things in an actually interesting way, i’ll appreciate it. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with giving basic emotional rhetoric but you need to be unique.

Some other stuff that may be important, POs will usually get good ranks from me and they start as the 4 on my ballot. But I’ll be honest if you’re running for PO be wary of the risks. Your rank will probably depend on how well the other speakers are. However, if you make no mistakes then you’re going to be in my T6

I value if you flip for the good of the chamber because that shows talent, but you still need to be convincing. It's not an excuse to give a half-baked speech.

Thats pretty much it so good luck.

I am a third year parent volunteer judge of Congressional Debate and Public Forum, representing American Heritage School in Delray, Florida. I have judged Congressional Debate at PBMSFL and upcoming Nationals in 2024, at TOC and Nationals in 2023 and Public Forum online in 2022. 2023 is my first Nationals judging.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

The first affirmative author should clearly and confidently outline the legislation and set the standard for the round. The first con speaker should be equally confident to present a counter-argument. A variety of clearly articulated pieces of evidence and quantitative and factual citations are always preferred to any vague, theoretical and qualitative statements. After the first two speeches, I look for additional evidence that augments the argument or a counter argument instead of re-stating previous arguments. Citing previous debaters and building on their key arguments adds value and shows that the speaker is alert and comprehends the legislation on a deeper level.

Ability to ask targeted questions is important. Quality of the question matters. Similarly, ability to carry the debate, answer concisely an to the question at hand and refer to the previous facts and metrics during the response is very important. In fact, this is the most important factor for me in judging the debator. When the Q&A time runs out, it usually becomes clear who held an advantage in that argument. Concise arguments win.

Presentation style matters also but to a lesser degree. It is finding that balance of being confident and assertive, yet not going overboard with screaming or trying too hard. Measured, confident delivery wins. Timing the speech close to the alloted time limit is a plus. Significantly short or a run-on speech is a negative.

Professional conduct and respect to other debaters and judges at all times is paramount. Ethics and values is table stakes. Else, you are out.

For a PO, I look for the ability to maintain order. The PO is in control of the Congress session. Show it. Run it and ensure that the rules are enforced at all times. Whiteboarding of debate topics and order of aft and con presenters for each legislation topic throughout the session helps.

I do not shake hands with presenters but try to maintain a positive, encouraging tone. Equal treatment to all participants.

Throughout each round, I maintain the count of key arguments, Q&A encounters, etc for each debator. At the end of each round, ranking becomes obvious based on the body of data gathered throughout the round for each participant. I usually make a fast ranking decision without major hesitations.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literally selection

- Good characterization

- Projection

Affiliation: Jackson-Reed High School (DC- 2015-2020), Alice Deal Middle School (2012-Present)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Former College NDT debater: Around the time that your parents were coming into existence.

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 30+ years at the high school and middle school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals and a variety of other forums. I am a tabula rasa judge up until the point that the advocacy becomes unrealistic. Quite honestly, when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round, I am far less inclined to vote in a debater/team's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD /Policy. if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow. Generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy is to be disrespectful of the educational value of the activity in word or deed please change your tactics. I prefer to vote for the realistic rather than the absurdist post-modern ramblings of a 'philosopher' that no one other than obscure academics that the rambler works with understand. Simple rule: If you can't explain the depth of a philosophy in two coherent sentences then save it for when you debate in college.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, a plan that is far more than a throw-away reiteration of the resolution. Instead, show all of those attending the round that you've thought and delved deep enough into the resolution to propose a viable change to the staus quo.

In LD/PF let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link or purpose will not only cause a raised eyebrow, but it will require far more work on your part to win my ballot. suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters. See comment regarding preposterous philosophy ramblings above.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain claims, warrants, and impacts and link back to the framework offered at the top of the round in order to provide a well-researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point out the fallacies of such arguments, they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Hey! I'm Aamvi, a college freshman at Temple University. I graduated from Hunterdon Central this past spring, and while there, I competed in Congressional Debate in NJ and on the National Circuit. I judge mostly Congress, so for any other event (PF/LD/etc.), treat me as a lay judge! For Congress, I value presentation slightly more than I do content (as long as what you're saying makes sense, aka, your analysis/warranting is good). For POs, as long as you're efficient and mostly accurate (mistakes happen, just don't let it mess you up for the rest of the session), you'll be ranked on my ballot.

Most importantly have fun, and be respectful to each other!

I will be looking for the following while judging Congressional Debaters:

1) Do you speak confidently, clearly, and slowly while presenting?

2) Are you backing up statements with accurate, precise, and verifiable data specific to your cause?

3) Are you professional, show respect to competitors, and listen attentively to appropriately respond?

I will be judging the Presiding Officer on how well they manage the congressional session.

I care more about the clarity and organization of your arguments and want to see how impactful they are through the flow. I prefer your arguments to be straightforward to reflect your points. Use your body languages appropriately will definitely be a plus. Don't be nervous and just enjoy your debate!