Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.

No, you can't bribe me in order to get good ranks. I have more integrity than my Congress persona would suggest.

Howdy! My name is Henry (he/him) and I’m a congress and worlds debater (as well as an extemper) from Texas. I’m a fairly seasoned competitor in these events, but definitely not the most seasoned judge you’ve ever had, so this paradigm is more than anything an outline of what I think good debate looks like based on my experience as a debater.

My goal as a judge is to provide constructive criticism of where you can improve as a debater, but if you have feedback/questions for me, I’m more than happy to hear you out! Talk to me after round, or contact me at hankfrankd@gmail.com, but I expect you to be respectful.

ROUND CONDUCT EXPECTATIONS:

• Make a conscious effort to make the round inclusive. You need to respect your peers' pronouns, name pronunciations, accommodations, etc. It's one thing to mess up and make the correction; it's very different to completely disregard someone's identity. This goes for everybody.

• [For congress mainly, but this applies to everyone]: Do better than actual congress. Don't be hostile or condescending--even all the "good" people are--because it ruins the round for everybody. Respect and decorum are the foundation of a good round in any event.

Discrimination/acting hateful towards your fellow competitors is unacceptable and non-negotiable. This is a losing gamble and I will drop you.

Now for the rambling...

CONGRESS

Don’t think of this as a “how to do congress for dummies” instruction manual; think of this as my views on what the best practices of a good congress round should be. How you choose to do congress is ultimately your call, so play to your strengths and have fun!

CONGRESS IN 11 WORDS

Change things. Break norms. Smash arguments. Innovate. Move the round forward!

CONGRESS IN 3 POINTS

I consider all three of these principles fairly deeply; I don't weigh presentation vs. argumentation "70/30" or anything like that.

• ARGUMENTATION: I will vote for debaters who do the most to advance the round and strengthen their side. Destroy your opponents’ highest ground, extend your side’s winning impacts, and hand me the clearest analysis possible. Don’t just tell me you’re winning, prove it.

• PRESENTATION: I will vote for debaters who bring the confidence, eloquence, and knowledge that make engaging speeches. Persuasive presentation is what makes congress a uniquely powerful type of debate, so try your best and get creative!

• ENGAGEMENT: Keep questioning, speaking, and engaging with the round. If you disappear from the debate just because you don’t like the bill or because the 3-hour round has gotten the best of you, you make me wonder how invested you really are [this isn’t great]. Keep fighting!

CONGRESS: THE SNYDER CUT

My philosophical “Congress is _______” statement:

Congress is debate presented in a way that is both easily understandable and compelling to ordinary people. If you’ve ever watched C-SPAN, you know that real-world legislators don’t speak with extreme speed or use unfamiliar terminology ("going down the flow", "solvency deficit", etc.); they debate complex legislation with big implications at a level their couch-potato constituents can understand and persuade people to take actions on problems they see.

Here’s a more extensive list of what I like to see in congress rounds:

• For early-round speakers (for sponsors this is fundamental): assume I know absolutely nothing about the bill at hand and give me a detailed rundown of what the bill would accomplish, who would implement it, and what the real-world impacts of its enactment would be. Why is this bill even necessary/completely atrocious?

• CITE THE LEGISLATION! This is a relatively simple action to take, but it makes you seem vastly more knowledgeable regarding the legislation you’re debating, and makes your words much more credible.

• For everyone except the sponsor, refute and interact with the arguments of the opposing side. More specifically, refute the STRONGEST arguments on the opposing side; don't just target the easiest or weakest arguments. This doesn't just have to look like simple rebuttals; I really like turns and offensive responses if that's your thing, but again, how you debate is up to you.

• Analyze the debate and draw new conclusions that keep the debate alive and relevant [crystalize and weigh if you're later in the round]. Using your limited speech time for rehash is a massive waste of your time, your competitors' time, and an educational opportunity for all of us. Rehash is not the same thing as offering a quick review of key clashes as context for analysis; rehash is repeating arguments that have already been made without adding any new analysis or implications to move the debate forward. Please, please, please use your speech to bring something new into the round!

• Be as persuasive as possible. The more invested and engaged in the debate you act, the more compelling a speaker you seem. I don't place much value on having a congress "persona"; I would rather you simply be as enthusiastic and authentic as you possibly can. Your speaking style and rhetorical choices offer a huge opportunity to distinguish yourself as a unique and effective speaker, but they also offer an opportunity to experiment with your approach to presentation. Being inventive, innovative, and creative in congress will take you far.

• Use evidence to substantiate your argument, not to make it. Your arguments should make logical sense without evidence, and what evidence you use should be contextualized and warranted into your broader arguments, rather than standing alone. [Also, make sure your evidence passes the smell test; if you're asking, "do I cite a news article from 1983?" or "is this Russian propaganda?", you should probably look elsewhere.]

PO Paradigm:

• A wise congress debater once said, "there are three type of PO: fast POs, charismatic POs, and bad POs". Being fast not only means you know how to keep precedence in a timely manner, it also means you know the rules of congress well enough to resolve rules questions and issues quickly. Being charismatic means you know how to lead the chamber in a respectful and engaging--but not intrusive--way, and know how to make the round fun in addition to being fair. Being bad means you don't know how to control a chamber or make no effort to preserve decorum or resolve challenges when the need arises. Trying your best is the bare minimum here.

• I am willing to grant POs more slack if no one is willing to run and you are forced to take on the challenge, but I still need to see a consistent effort to preserve decorum, keep precedence, and move the round along. Know what you're doing, or at least do a good job of acting like it.

• Automatic precedence charts can be useful, but you still need to know what's going on in the round without them. If you can't explain why someone's precedence is what it is because you're letting an opaque computer program do your job, that's on you.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

• Debate is a game, which makes it competitive by nature, but it's ultimately not that deep. The only expectations I have for you at the end of the day are to try your hardest, be open to learning, and be a respectful person.

Good luck and have fun!

Background:

Competed for all of HS (2018-2022) mainly in Congress and World Schools in high-level national circuit elimination rounds. Now I compete in collegiate Parliamentary debate at Rutgers University.

If you have any questions want further feedback, etc. you can ask me after round or reach me at:
garigipatipranav@gmail.com

*I'll add other events later, sorry. If you have any questions ask me at the start of round (for Congress, too).

All Events:

BE CONSIDERATE AND NICE. If you're condescending, outwardly mean, disrespectful, and especially inequitable (racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) I'm dropping you so fast.

Other debate events: here's my college parli paradigm (APDA), fairly techy event, but not circuit:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19NkKqhwYJBx1fHhEVJsjcTbtVDskLPHUNbJsfskm_6M/edit?usp=sharing

Congress:

"Is he a flow judge?????"

Very broadly, Congress is a debate event with aspects of speech, not a speech event with aspects of debate. I generally prioritize argumentation, strategy, etc. over style or speaking quality. That being said, both flow and lay are important, do your best to not sacrifice either. I‘d say there's a bar for how good your lay and speaking are before I start caring about you content. This typically means not being monotone, having a level of confidence, professionalism, minimal fluency errors, not being aggressive/condescending, etc. From this point, I don't really care about lay unless you have mind-boggling rhetoric, incredible vocal inflections, or something like that, and will pretty much only care about the quality of your arguments + how you interact with the round. This being said, please don't just ignore all lay or I'll get super bored. I still really enjoy quality rhetoric and appealing deliveries.

How I evaluate arguments

I try to avoid intervention as much as possible but given that each person only gets one speech on a bill and isn't guaranteed a questioning block, I do have to do some intervening. Based on this philosophy there are a few key things to note:

1) I don't want to do any extra work for the debate. Please terminalize impacts, have ultra-clear links and warrants, and don't assume that I'm going to make any logical leaps for your argument to work that you aren't explicitly laying out for me. If an argument is missing some of these pieces I evaluate it as its weakest possible state.

2) If you make a really bad argument, even if no one addresses it, it's hard for me to give you a high rank. Ideally, every argument interacts with the stock or some key issue/impact in the round so there is no argument that is completely unresponded to, if you make a unique argument, still have it tied into the core issues. If rounds operate this way I can be less interventionist which I like and you should too. Arguments that are completely left-field in the pursuit of being 'unique' aren't important to the round and are probably not going to rank high for me.

3) Offense wins rounds, defense is just to knock down the other side's offense so yours is comparatively better. Have some offensive material in our speech, whether it's weighing, a unique argument, an impact extension, etc. If your speech is only refutation it's missing something super important and it's almost impossible for you to get my 1.

4) If your argument doesn't have uniqueness on some level (impacts that are distinct from the status quo), I'm not going to evaluate it. Debate is a comparative activity so not only do you have to compare your impacts to the other side, you have to compare how the world in which the bill is passed is distinctly different from the status quo.

Roles of Speakers

Every speech needs to add something to the round, if it doesn't you're not ranking well. However, different speeches are meant to add different things, if you're acting outside your speeches role it'll, again, be hard for you to rank high.

1) Sponsorships: This isn't any aff constructive. Set the stage for the debate and explain to the judges how everything works and give them necessary status quo information. A lot of the judges probably didn't debate Saudi Arms Sales 50 times so make sure everyone can understand what's going on. Solvency is super important. Explain why the legislation improves the squo you outlined on a very specific level. Give impacts that aren't super specific but not too broad that I can't evaluate them either. It should be pretty obvious what the important impacts in the round will be when I read a bill and I should hear them set up in your sponsor.

2) Early Round: Every speech after the sponsor needs some refutation/weighing but it's still not your primary purpose. Build up the stock and if it's already been said give some nuance, maybe new warrants, front lining solvency, stronger impacts, etc. Your goal, like every speech, is to advance your side's advocacy, but at this point, in a constructive way. If you want to be unique take a niche, but relevant, issue and tie it into the key impacts of the round. Stock is your friend, rehash is not. Engage with the stock without rehashing.

3) Mid-Round: Start breaking down and simplifying the round more. You're obviously going to have much more argument interaction so pick the most important arguments to interact with and make it clear why you're picking those. You still do want some constructive material, though. These speeches have the least guidelines and are most subject to what the round needs because there's not a definitive split for when the beginning/middle/end is. I typically want to start seeing overviews at this point in the round (a line or two about what specifically your speech is going to achieve and add to the round) or something that achieves the same purpose.

4) Late Round: These speeches are the highest risk and highest reward. The best late round speeches are some of the best speeches ever and the worst can be completely forgettable. It goes without saying that constructive material is the least viable here and, for the most part, all of your speech should focus on engaging with existing arguments. That being said, constructive material can still work if it is inherently engaging with other arguments, like offensive responses or turns (Rohit Jhawar's second speech in TOC Finals 2020 is a perfect example). Since there's so much to work with I need you to tell me what's important and why that's so. Write my ballot for me in this speech. Tell me what I vote on, why I vote on your side, and why you, specifically, deserve my 1 (don't say this exactly just prove it to me with the content). I don't need a standard 2 question crystal, any format works as long as you clearly signpost the organization of the speech and achieve the same things content-wise. You also don't need to touch every single argument, it's okay if you don't address ones that aren't super relevant or important. Please weigh.

POs:

If you get my 1 consider it the biggest compliment in the world, I'm anti-POs winning but also anti-good POs not breaking. Great POs for me get between 2-4, okay is 5-6, and bad is 7-9. Your job isn't just to pick the right speakers and questioners but to also lead the chamber when things go off the rails. If there's an uneven amount of speeches on each side and someone calls for a recess to figure out who's flipping, you need to be leading the discussion. You're a facilitator AND leader. Excessive and uncorrected errors in parliamentary procedure, recency, etc. will have me drop you a lot. Being slow is not great either. If the parli has to intervene a lot, it's not a good look on you. If you make a mistake be apologetic, fix it, and move on.

Miscellaneous

1) I'm fine with debate jargon, but I'll boost people who can explain complex debate jargon concepts with normal people words.

2) Kendrick was my #1 artist on Spotify Wrapped, if you make a Kendrick reference I'll bump you up one rank.

3) I love it if you can do a unique speech structure, only if it makes sense for the round. If you can pull it off well, it goes a long way.

4) I like people who have the initiative to flip, but this isn't a free pass to give a bad speech just because you didn't have that much time. That being said, I'm probably going to mark you down more if you stay on your side out of fear that you might screw up a flipped speech if you have had a lot of time to flip.

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.