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!

Yes, this paradigm is intentionally in Comic Sans. Enjoy!!

EXPERIENCE
Member of the NSDA's USA Debate Education Program for WSD. Captain of the Naperville Central HS Debate Team. Semifinalist at 2023 TOC in Congressional Debate.

CONGRESS
I like breaking Congress down into 3 categories that I rank based on: round integration, content, and deliveryin that order.

Some notes on how to score well for round integration:

• REFUTE -- Refute the best argument on the other side. There are 2 parts to refs: name-dropping and disproving/outweighing their argument -- if 1 of those doesn't happen, it doesn't count in my eyes. Without refs outside of the sponsor, you won't get more than a 4 (likely a 3) for speech score.
• EXTEND -- Meet burdens that haven't been met (no, not your lazy quantification), give terminalization of an impact or proving that you have a better solvency.
• WEIGHING -- Weigh the AFF and NEG worlds, not individual arguments. I order weighing as follows :
  Pre-Requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

Some notes on content:

• ARGUMENTS -- Provide good arguments. If you have a unique argument that shifts the round, go for it. If you have round-winning framing, give it to me. I'm open to anything.
• EVIDENCE -- Give strong quantifications wherever possible. Month and year minimum (last 5 years). Author credentials appreciated but not required.
• PRINCIPLE-- These have a place, but are rarely used correctly. If you know how to run a principled argument in World Schools, go ahead, you'll do well. Otherwise, chances are it'll hurt you.

Some notes on delivery:

• INTROS -- A good introduction goes a long way, especially jokes and funny intros if done well. If you use an intro that's been used before (especially if by another debater), I will drop you -- yes this is hypocritical if you know me irl, I don't care.
• PADS -- The less you look at your pad, the better. If you wanna pull a power move and go no pad, I'll pick you up for sure, just make sure it doesn't come at the expense of strong refutations. I don't like iPads, but won't drop you for using one.

WSD:
I come mostly from a Congress background, so I weigh speaking and style more heavily than other judges. However, that almost exclusively goes for speaking points and spreading won't impact which side wins the debate in my view.

I'm usually okay if you speak a little fast, but I need to be able to flow and if I can't understand you, I can't do that and it won't help you (plus your speaks will be pretty bad).

Other than that, content comes first. Make compelling arguments and give strong mechs for them. Examples of your mechs are preferred but not required. Impacting means a lot so do that well too-- a strong impact will win you the round if done well.

Some quick things that will get you ranked higher / make you do better:

• POIs -- I will drop your team if you constantly deny POIs or don't give them.
• SIGNPOST -- Trust me, it helps a lot.
• CLASH -- Please use clash-style refutation in The 3 and a little in The Reply. Use whatever Refutations you want in The 1/2.
• PRINICIPLE -- I love a good principle argument, but if it isn't done well then I'll typically take the practical instead. Analogies are key.
• RHETORIC -- Rhetorical analysis is too often missed out on in WSD, if you give good rhetoric (including a solid intro/outro) I will immediately pick you up for speaks.

Generally speaking, the easiest/fastest path to the ballot is the one I'm going to take, so make it obvious why I should pick your side.

Hi, I'm Ashish Kashyap, and I'm a junior at William Fremd High School, in my 3rd year of Congressional Debate. I've been competing in the ICDA and TOC circuit for a few years, have won a few things and all that. Hope this paradigm helps. My email is ashdakash@gmail.com if you have any questions. Feel free to ask anything.

General thoughts:

In terms of judging, I don't have much experience, but all of my views as a judge reflect what I feel about Congress as a whole, which I can easily talk about. My debate "philosophy" came from something a basketball coach told me many years ago.

"Take only what the game gives you".

To me, the most important thing in Congress is to be able to adapt all of your "prep" and pre-prepared rhetoric and such, and be ready to completely change everything you had. It’s very obvious when someone hasn't adjusted for the round properly, and it really stands out in a negative light. Be ready to change, adapt, and even learn new things in chamber. The best speeches I've ever seen, happen when people have an extemporaneous response to the ongoings of the round.

Delivery/Presentation:

To me, a speaker's presentation of their arguments can be the difference-maker. I heavily heavily value strong delivery, with passion, and skillful tone variation. Feel free to be as loud as you want. Just make sure to give your volume a meaning within the context of what you're saying, otherwise you're just yelling at the chamber. I recognize that delivery is a skill that not everybody has down, and that's OK. I will never penalize for a speaker who's presenting strong, unique arguments for not having entrancing delivery. But if you can effectively convey your ideas, and pair that with skillful presentation, you will be rewarded. Don’t forget that your delivery is the best place to try out new things, new styles, new voices, and I really value this when it's done well.

Argumentation/Structure:

The best way to get my 1 with argumentation is to bring a game changing take. Find arguments that will rip the debate a new one, instead of relying on things we’ve both heard a million times. In this day and age, with TikTok and YouTube being so popular, everybody’s entertainment driven. So am I. I will be massively entertained if you present arguments that nobody else would even think of. And don’t do your amazing argument a disservice by not connecting it back to the round and your opposition. But when you do refute, I’m not impressed with refuting weaker arguments. Pick on someone your size. If your argument is truly round winning, then you should be refuting the strongest arguments of the other side. This doesn’t mean name dropping, this means going through their links, and showing me why they do not work anymore. Once you’ve done this, explain why your argument matters in multiple contexts, and why it wins the round. Many debaters drop some crazy cards, but don’t do anything to explain why anyone should care. When that happens, what’s being said isn’t really an “argument”, it’s just a statement.

For structure, I don’t know how else to say this, but do whatever the hell you want. I don’t care if you have one point, two points, three points, bloc, no block, whatever it may be, do not feel limited to the things you’ve been taught. At the end of the day, I’m just looking for a fluid organization that’s clearly conveyed, and the possibilities to accomplish that are endless. Get creative, do it properly, and it’ll be rewarded.

For sponsorships, I have a simple set of expectations. Frame the context properly, and jumpstart the affirmation by tying your set of arguments to the context. I don’t care about having or not having pre-refs. Don’t shy away from the sponsor, I think good sponsors always stand out in muddled debates.

PO:

I don’t think I’m capable of giving a PO a 1 rank. I’ll be honest, I’m a really bad PO. Like historically bad (But I’ve still been in enough rounds to know when you’ve messed up). In terms of Congress, I don’t understand why having a student PO is necessary. So as a combination of those two things, I don’t rank them as 1. That being said, if you’re the PO, make minimal mistakes, be fair and relatively efficient, and I’ll rank you higher than the break cutoff for the round. For outrounds, I’ll expect more efficiency and almost no mistakes, but I’ll properly reward you for that.

Also, not having a personality and being “boring” as a PO won’t knock you down, but please, make jokes, have some fun as a PO (while not sacrificing your efficiency). Rounds are long, people get tired, so PO’s with a likable personality will always stand out.

Questioning:

I take note of questioning. Consistent good questioning and good composure and responses can move the needle. Both the question in question, and the response. With shorter blocks, be concise, and don’t add liberties or congratulations. Get straight to the point. Cut straight into the arguments and the links. Remember to be civil, but I’m fine with heated back and forths. Passion is great!

Hi! I’m Omkar, and I currently compete in congressional debate at William Fremd HS.

Congressional debate is about presenting effective arguments that further ongoing debate. I basically judge based off that sentence. For presentation, I value uniqueness - be yourself, not whatever congressional debater you've watched a video of. At the end of the day, you'll always sound more believable and interesting by leaning into your style. The arguments you present need to be accurate and effective. I expect clear warranting - sources are good, but stats need to be paired with an understandable reason why. Finally, you need to explain how the arguments you make interact with the debate. Whether that be through weighing, delinking, or turning, it's not a good Congress speech unless it's clearly aware of the round it's being given in. That being said, this doesn't mean I will rank down sponsorships. I understand that the sponsor has a different job than the rest of the round, and I will rate a good sponsorship just as high, if not higher, than I would rate a good mid-round or late-round speech. A sponsor needs to adequately set up the status quo as it relates to the bill, establish the key frameworks that the round will revolve around, and have plenty of offense showing why the aff is the winning side.

Outside of speeches, I value questions that advance the debate through delinking and weighing. If you ask a good question and the speaker is consistently avoiding it, don't waste your 30 seconds. Move on - I will notice when a good question wasn't answered properly. I will rank good POs at minimum whatever is needed to break: “good” means the chamber runs quickly because the PO keeps control and doesn't make mistakes. Be respectful and kind to your fellow debaters, and 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