National Semifinalist in Congress in 2011, have been judging Congress & PF since. Experienced Congressional parliamentarian.

General

The purpose of high school debate is to learn how to analyze & weigh information and determine the best course of action, together - and in the real world, you'll be doing this with a wide variety of people from all across the spectrum of humanity. Therefore, your arguments should always be given as if presented to a layperson with zero prior background knowledge or experience. Give background, carefully explain, illustrate your warrants & impacts clearly, and explicitly tie them into your stance on the topic; ensure that any layperson listening could easily follow you to your argument's conclusion.

My job is to enter each round as a layperson, with a completely clean slate & mind, and judge who made the strongest arguments; it's not my place to bring my prior knowledge or experience into play, let alone be the arbiter of truth and correctness - it's how well you argue against the other side. If one side makes arguments that are weak, shaky, or flawed, it's up to the other side to point that out - and if they don't, those arguments may very well carry. That being said: if you make arguments that clearly don't pass the sniff test (i.e., points that to any reasonable outside observer seem to be logically sketchy, misrepresentative, or unfounded), those will count against you - so bring the evidence, cite your sources (tell me who they are, establish their credibility, and tell me why I should believe them), and back up your claims.

Finally: If you make any claim of the form "if X does/doesn't happen, then Y will/will not happen", clearly explain why & how. Never take for granted that Thing 1 happening will necessarily lead to Thing 2 happening - clearly establish that link for me and your audience, telling me why it's either certain or at least likely that this chain of events will occur.

Congress

We as a student Congress debate important issues that tangibly affect a lot of people, and you may not always be one of them. If you're truly passionate about a topic and your stance on it, speak like it. If not, that's okay: argue for the sake of ensuring that this body chooses the best course of action, and deliver your arguments clearly for that end.

(Note: this is not political theater. Your speeches aren't performance art pieces. Don't fake passion and enthusiasm or grandstand on every issue. Actual politics has enough of that already, and has become such a sh*tshow due in no small part to unauthentic, insincere people who inflame passions for votes. Don't act - when you actually care, it shows, and when you don't, it's obvious to all.)

Quality over quantity: doesn't matter how many speeches you give if you make solid, knockout arguments. For me, length doesn't matter either. No, judges can't specifically award NSDA points to a speech under 60 seconds - but who cares. Having good debate is what actually matters, and if you deliver a solid point that makes a difference in the debate, doesn't matter how many seconds it takes to deliver it - in fact, in the real world, the more concise the better.

Your goal as a Congress house is to pass legislation, to actually take action and do things and create solutions to these problems, not to just say no and point out the flaws in everything that comes across your desk (again, see our current political discourse). Use the amendment process: if a piece of legislation has flaws that can be changed, change them! If you vote against hearing or passing a given amendment, and then proceed to speak in negation of the legislation (or have earlier in the round) based on the flaw that amendment specifically addresses, you'd better give a darn good reason why you've shot down a solution to your problem.

Public Forum

Convince me. As far as I'm concerned, each team has four speeches and three cross-ex periods in which to convince me that you're right and the other side is wrong - I'm listening to all of them, and I don't particularly care what pieces of information and argument are supposed to be given when. And during cross-ex, keep it civil - we're all on the same team, trying to figure out the best course of action for the common good. Ask questions, allow your opponents to answer fully, and treat them with respect.

Congress

I love a good speaking style but the number one emphasis must be solid arguments. Speaking loudly and with energy is awesome but it isn’t a good substitute for making unique logical arguments.

Sources

Use professional sources. I typically like to hear their qualifications (professor at Harvard, etc.), and year. I would make sure you have your sources accessible in case a debater challenges your sources. When someone challenges your sources, and you have them available to support your claim, it makes you look really prepared.

Refutation

Refute your opponents. If you aren’t refuting, you aren’t really debating anything. The further and further the debate on a bill goes on, the more and more refutation I would like to hear. You should be able to do this by taking notes of the opposing arguments and researching or pointing out flaws. Directly refuting specific points of other representatives respectfully can be done by saying something along the lines of “Representative Smith, when you claim ____, understand _____.”

Rehash

Make sure your points are original. Hearing the same points over and over again by different speakers doesn't add anything to the debate, it just drags it on. If you can't come up with anything new, then you should refute what's been said. If everything seems to have already been refuted, it's probably time to move the previous question.

Presentation

Try not to read off directly from your notes or laptop. Having notes is great but make sure you're not just reading them off word by word in a Congress event. This can be difficult to do in the beginning but if you practice your confidence in this will improve.

Professionalism

Show professionalism. This means avoiding slang, slouching, talking during other speeches, or any type of manner that could be perceived as rude to your peers. Remember that this is a mock Congress so you should be acting as an elected Representative.

Quality > Quantity

While I appreciate being active in the debate, giving the most speeches isn't going to necessarily make you rank the best. Quality is over quantity when it comes to giving speeches just to give speeches. That being said if you have a great speech for every bill, that's really awesome. Just make sure you aren't wasting time in the debate with half-effort speeches. There’s no specific number of speeches I’m necessarily looking for in a tournament. Your questions themselves do not get ranked however actively asking questions does show you are participating in the debate and that you care which is very good to see.

Respect

Treat all of your peers with respect. This should be self-explanatory.

Scoring

On Tab, I’ll list what you can do to improve.

6 - Exceptional Speech. I don’t give out lots of these so if you did this you were great. Great arguments, great refutation, great sources, great presentation, great professionalism, and great time.

5 - Great Speech. There was likely a bit to improve, but overall this is something to be proud of.

4 - Above Average Speech. Good work, look at my tips and you’ll be placing in no time.

3 - Decent Speech. You got the hang of it, check to see what you can improve

2 - Alright Speech. You have a good bit of room for improvement.

1 - Something’s not quite right. There’s some work to do.

Overall, if you’re scoring on the lower side, it’s not a reason to feel bad. Look at the advice your judges give you, practice, and you will improve. If your judges are ranking you lower it’s not because they don’t like you or are trying to be mean, but they want you to succeed. If they tell you it was an awesome speech when in reality it needs some work, it’s not going to help you grow as a debater and ultimately that’s the goal of giving feedback.

Have fun

If you mess up, don’t worry about it, just keep doing your best.

PF

Refutation is number 1. When one side gives me point A, B, and C on we should pass a resolution and the other side gives me point A, B, and C we we should fail a refutation, there's not much to work with there on which side is the clear winner. But when one side can not only tell me why they are in the right but the other side is in the wrong the winner is clear. If the opposing side is saying something that is wrong or doesn't make sense, do not let them get away with it- tell me why they are wrong or why it doesn't make sense.

Make sure your links are clear. If you're going to be debating a topic such as free school lunches and start talking about nuclear weapons, its probably a pretty bold claim. Bold claims are fine, but the bolder they are, the stronger the link back to the resolution needs to be.

I debated in high school and college (graduated 1968) and have been coaching since. I have lived through the transition from Debate to Policy Debate and the birth and development of both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Lincoln-Douglas (value debate) was created because many people did not like the direction that Policy Debate had gone. As such, LD debate centers around a conflict between two values. Debaters argue that one of the values in the round is of higher importance than the other. This value priority determines the affirmation or negation of the resolution. Thus, the debater argues Justice(ex) is the higher value, and since Justice is the higher value the resolution is affirmed. A plan can be used to demonstrate how the resolution could be applied in a practical sense. Since LD is designed not to have a plan, if the opponent raises that argument, I will vote on that. Otherwise, the plan can be debated in terms of workability, practicality, etc. Regardless of the strategies used – in order to win the round, the debater must win the value conflict.

Public Forum was introduced to correct the flaws that had emerged in LD (excessive speed, strategies and tactics rather than sound argument, etc) and is designed to be judged by a non-debate person. Thus – a good Public Forum Round is clear and persuasive. Arguments and evidence relates directly back to the topic. There are no plans in PF – I will vote on that. A test that I use in judging PF is whether or not a “regular person” would understand the arguments and be able to decide the outcome of the round.

Since debate – in all of its forms – is an educational, communication event the following hold true:

Delivery is the means by which the debater presents the arguments and evidence for decision.

The presentation should be as clear and understandable as possible – rate and articulation are important elements because the judge must hear and understand the case in order to vote on it.

IT IS THE DEBATER’S OBLIGATION TO ADAPT TO THE JUDGE – NOT VICE VERSA.

Debaters should present their material and conduct themselves in a professional manner. They should avoid attitudes (reflected in both tone and facial expression) that are unprofessional. Word choice should be appropriate to an educational event (cussing, swearing, vocabulary choice etc) have NO PLACE in an educational activity.

I am and have been the coach at LHS for the last 9 years. I was also the 2021 NSDA's National Coach of the Year.

General Notes-
* I am in tab much more often than I'm behind a round at this point. As such, I may be rusty on some more specific lingo/ trends(read as: don't just label an argument a RVI and expect me to accept it on face, explain why it's important)
* I have a disability that has varying levels of impact depending on the day; when it's flaring up, I might have trouble flowing spreading, or processing information at that speed. If you don't want to exclude me from the round, it'd be helpful to check in with me before the round starts. I'm also super happy to talk about it if you have more specific questions :)

*I will NOT vote on: racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, anything other bigotry. Please just be cool people.

*If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.

PF-
Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing. Absent of that, I'll default to generic util weighing. I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing, but will listen to either.
Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.
Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.
I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.

LD-
Standards/ Framework- I don't have strong feelings any one way about V/Cr vs Single Standard and/or RoB etc. I initially learned LD through a pretty traditional framing, so I tend to track that way myself, but, I'm open to whatever you want to do if you explain in. If you're running some philosophy that's out there or uncommon, it would benefit you to explain it clearly.
Theory- I'm down, but it actually needs to be theory (read as: "Speed is unfair/ exclusionary" isn't an argument I'll evaluate; Interp, violation standard, voter framing is)
Ks- See above, I'll happily hear out a k with structure that actually functions within a round. YOU HAVE TO OFFER A LINK or there's no way for me to evaluate the K
A Priori/ Prima facie/ probably other things- justify why it matters and I'll hear it out.
**As a general interpretation, I view theory/ks/ a priori arguments etc as arguments. They aren't some sort of magical trap card that automatically win you the round. They are arguments that need to be interacted with and extended like anything else. Reading an ableism K in the NC and then leaving it there isn't going to win me over. Your opponent answering an identity K with arguments doesn't make them inherently bad, they're interacting with an argument you put out
Solvency- I don't inherently think solvency is important in LD. This doesn't mean that I won't hear out solvency arguments, but you need to justify why I should care about solvency for it to be a voting issue for me. "The aff doesn't offer any solvency" on its own isn't enough for me to vote on.


CX-
**I really don't judge policy all that often. If I'm behind your round, things were likely pretty desperate from a tab or judge hire perspective. Despite that, I will do my best to adjudicate the round- you'll probably just need to slow down a bit on taglines and important analysis for me.

Looking for REFUTATION in speeches and at least one of the three pillars of argument (ethos, pathos, and logos) in each claim. Looking for you to convince me that your source is reputable. Not looking for "what if" scenarios. Not looking for a hastily spoken word vomit.

Pronouns of reference: She/Her/Hers and They/Them/Theirs

When judging debate, I believe in quality over quantity in most instances.

I competed in congressional debate (preferring the role of presiding officer) and LD style debate while in high-school, and competed in congressional debate for the Simpson College team.

When judging congressional debate, I want to see well-thought out arguments, and connections. If you argue for "A" in one resolution and against it in another, I might raise an eyebrow or two. Ask questions that engage the speaker, and show that you listened to what they said.

Additionally, I do not tolerate anything discriminatory or deliberately hurtful/targeted commentary. While our actual Congress might get mean, remember that we are all here to learn and grow from each other.

Clear links in argumentation; answer the questions that your argument creates. Tone in relation to arguments (is it appropriate for the type of argument being presented), clarity of speech. Respect and decorum in round. Debating the resolution. Rights aren't debatable.

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

6 years of judging in PF and Congress

Overall Expectations:

Be respectful to your fellow competitors and judges. Debate is educational as well as competitive and the skills that you learn and develop within your event will serve you well later in life. I speak on this as a former debater.

Take pride in the work that you do. It can be very obvious when you are not as prepared. There is an element of debate that does require improvisation and being able to form arguments on the spot but the best arguments are still those that have an element of preparedness to it. Find that balance and I promise it will reflect well on your ballot.

Just like you, I am still learning how to be a good judge, so I ask for some patience, especially in events like PF and LD where I do not have nearly as much experience as I do with Congress.

Any kind of argument based on bigoted ideology will result in an instant loss of the round and I will be discussing it with you and your coach.

Congress:

Congress is probably the most unique of all of the debate events done at the NSDA level. The speed is much slower and you must be more tactical when you choose to speak. This does not make it any less debate and expect you to be paying attention to what your fellow competitors are doing in the session. I love clash and have no problem with you doing it from the beginning. Call each other out while staying as respectful as possible, we don't need this to descend into actual Congress.

Respect is paramount in Congress. While an individual event you should work together with your fellow representatives/senators to come up with strategies, set the docket, and pass legislation. This is a mock Congress and you should take into consideration the needs of the people you are supposed to be representing.

Questions are super important in debate and I consider it when making my decision. Quality is always more important than quantity. I'd rather that you be asking 1 or 2 good questions than 5 or 6 not-so-good ones.

PF:

The main element that is needed within PF is the ability to adapt. Not only to your opponent but to your judge as well. I am not a very technical judge. While keeping track of your flows your argument needs to make sense. You can't just argue that if the status quo changes it will lead to nuclear war. I need a sound argument of cause and effect. If the prompt proves to be true then it will lead to these side effects.

If your point is landing don't drag it along toward the end. Cut it out if you can't get past your opponent's refutation. The best debaters don't force through an argument but are flexible and creative enough to still get the point even when one of their points doesn't work.

During cross don't talk over one another. You are not proving a point you are just being rude. I will be paying attention during cross and will be using that to weigh into my decision. If you are talking I am listening. The first time I won't say anything but if it continues to become a problem I will say something and you don't want your team to lose a point because of it.

LD:

I am relatively new to judging LD so please bear with me.

If you have any questions please feel free to email me at sky.stefanski14@gmail.com

Win the flow. As simple as that.

In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":

I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.

This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.

In terms of responding to your opponent's case:

I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.

I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.

Speed:

I personally cannot handle that much speed. I can listen to you when you talk a little fast but, keep in mind a judge can't flow what I can't understand. If you choose to talk fast you have to enunciate your words. If you are talking too fast I will say clear. If you choose to continue at that speed I will say clear again. If I still am unable to flow and understand you then I will drop my pen and stop flowing until I am able to understand you.

Logistics:

Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.

Cross-examination/Crossfire:

I don't care if you sit during these. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.

Have fun and be civil.