• You need to have a good AGD
• You need to have good cadence, volume, eye contact, and hand gestures
• You need to be able to adapt, you should not be giving a normal speech as a last speaker
• You need to have some form of refutation in your speech if you are not the first or second speaker
• Do not rehash an argument, do not rehash an argument with a new piece of data unless you are refuting a counter arg
• Decorum, humor is good but do not yell at people or try too hard to be funny

I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I have been a parent judge for 6 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments.I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments.

Please do not bring up your computer or tablet when giving speeches.

At the end of the session, I have to rank you and that is difficult, so please talk to me when I am finished if possible.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions will also resonate with me. I listen to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debate from you and your peers that includes refutation of previous arguments and crystallization of arguments rendered. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging.'

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind toward the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

Congress:

• Every speech should add something to the overall debate; repeating facts and claims is futile.
• Depth of analysis, use of relevant facts and statistics, and thorough responses/refutations to the opposing viewpoint are highly valued.
• While strong rhetoric is always beneficial, a "good" speech is specific, well-researched, and truly relevant to the bill.
• Most importantly, ensure your argumentation and line of reasoning are clear. The best argument in a round can falter if it becomes difficult to follow.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

Most basic things like good sources, logical links, and cohesive speaking are important to me. The most important thing is that you are authentic and genuinely care about the topics you are talking about. I really enjoy genuinely passionate speeches.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with.

As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

Hi! I'm Sasha DiMare, a recent alum of the national circuit. I competed in Congress for 6 years and Informative Speaking for my last year. I'm currently a student at Georgetown University, studying International Political Economy and Management at the McDonough School of Business, and I am a part-time coach for Congressional Debate. I write very thorough notes on both your performance and the debate, so make sure to check your ballots!

CONGRESS

DO:

• have a strong and brief walkup (name, quick spelling (if at all), side of debate)
• annunciation and projection is HUGE for me. have the confidence to be firm in your voice. I want to be able to discern every word
• have an intro that sticks (and it less than 30 seconds). I love humor in speeches, but it has to be done elegantly and tactfully.
• make your claims and warrants very clear. Many debaters write claims that are actually warrants, or have non-unique warrants that fall flat in the round. your warrant is one of the most important parts of your speech
• have quantifiable data. not claims from people who cannot put numbers to names.
• make your impact HIT the chamber. your impact should tell me why I, the average American should care.
• weigh both sides of the debate
• have substantive refutation, not just name dropping other senators
• be professional!!
• keep your questions and answers in questioning brief

DON'T:

• interrupt questioners/ speakers during questioning
• stand before the PO calls for questioners
• scream. seriously.
• pull cards/data from illegitimate sources OR AI. If something sounds far fetched, I may do a brief search to see if your source/data exists.
• rehash points without providing depth
• be inactive during questioning
• be on your phone during round
• talk about other competitors after round
• use dehumanizing language towards certain regions, ethnicities, communities, or groups (e.x. "illegal")--> please use the politically correct term (e.x. "undocumented")

I am a parent judge likely judging congressional debate. I value good argumentation and strong evidence slightly more than delivery, rewarding the speakers who move the round and aid their respective side (affirmation or negation) the most. That being said, I do value smooth delivery and clever rhetoric – keep the round interesting! I also favor strong leaders of the round who are active throughout in all regards, from making motions to questioning.

Most importantly, please explain WHY what you're saying is so important to the round. Best speakers are capable of making my job easy.

POs: I will often place you in my top 5 if you are fair, efficient, and transparent. I will not rank you too harshly if you make mistakes, but please show that you are knowledgable, practiced, and experienced.

Have fun!

I am a teacher from South Boston, Massachusetts. I have no background in debate. I am new to judging but expect to be a parent judge for the next several years.

Be respectful of your fellow debaters. I will not mistake aggression for passion, they are completely different.

Always have data or sound reasoning (widely accepted logic or norms) to support your statements. Given the current state of information on the internet, reliable resources (.org sites, .gov sites, peer-reviewed journals, reputable news sites) will be considered in the strength of your argument. Cite your strong references.

Please don't speak too quickly and please don't try to pack in a lot of information within your allotted time. A good argument should be clear and concise. Sometimes the strongest points and references get lost, when they should be highlighted and possibly even repeated (state, support, state again).

The questions and answers to questions can be just as important as the speeches, especially if the topics have a lot of consensus. On that note, challenge norms! ...it is good to think through an unpopular stance even if it is personally uncomfortable. It shows courage.

I am on the Princeton Debate Panel, competing in American and British parliamentary. I have done World Schools Debate, but I have never done Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread; I also will not read cases that are emailed/flashed. I am not comfortable evaluating tech debates (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.).

Racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other form of discrimination will not be tolerated. Please be respectful and have fun! And please feel free to ask me any questions before the round, I'm very happy to clarify anything!

My name is WK (they/she).

I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been teaching full time since finishing undergrad in 2020. Currently, I teach debate to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress (though I tab more than I judge these days), so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

LD NOTE FOR BRONX '24:Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

I am not a regular LD judge: I debated in the Northeast ten years ago, and LD was still slow and trad. That said, I have recently begun coaching more progressive/speedy LD. So while I am hypothetically good for the K and really dense phil and I can handle up to 300 wpm, I am simply not as adept as some other judges might be in terms of flowing the fastest LD rounds. So, bear that in mind when reviewing these basic preferences:

1. LARP/Policy (simply where I have the most experience)
2. 2. K(inc. POMO, ID, and K affs) (def Kvk>>KvPolicy>>>>>KvT, but do you)
3. 3. Trad, Phil (fine)
4. Theory and T (I would really rather not have to evaluate this)
5. 5/S. Tricks (probably a hard drop if you go for the trick even if you win it, ngl)

PUBLIC FORUM

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Yes, please put me on the email chain ( wkay@berkeleycarroll.org )

Speed: speed is mostly fine (I'm pretty comfy up to ~300 wpm) but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down (usually your enunciation is the problem and not the speed). 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest, since I am coaching every topic I'm judging. That said, it's your job to indict ev if it's bad or else I'm not gonna count it against the person who reads it (though I'll probably note it in RFD/comments and reflect it in speaker points). Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), then just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Obviously, if you think evidence is clipped or totally bogus, that's a different story by the rules. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Framework first, it's gonna decide how I evaluate the flow. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why I should prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD and will just off of whatever weighing mechanisms are given in-round. Or worse, I'll just intervene if there are no clear weighing mechs. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot. If nobody reads framework, give me clear weighing mechanisms in rebuttal and summary, don't make me intervene.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in second rebuttal. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded-to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Any defense read in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self-kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points effectively.

Summary: 1st Summary needs to frontline just like second rebuttal. Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based on it. I like it when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). Suppose I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's: in that case, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: a reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can where you need to. The Final Focus should then respond to anything new in summary (hopefully not too much) and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally go by this: “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: I’m super open to it (BESIDES TRICKS)! I’m relatively new to coaching this sort of material (way more experience than your average PF coach, but way less than your average LD/CX coach), but feel very confident evaluating it. Topical link would be sick on a K but if not, make sure your link/violation is suuuuuper clear or else you’re in hot water. Make sure you’re extending ROB and the alt(s) in every speech after you read the K, or else it’s a non-starter for my ballot. I’m most excited about (and most confident evaluating) identity-based Ks and those that critique debate as an institution (e.g. as an extension/branch of the colonial project). On theory, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and almost certainly breaking rules tbh, and so am very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a disclosure round I judged in 2023), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good your theory is. I don’t love disclosure theory only because I’ve gotten real bored of it and don’t think it makes for good rounds. That said, if you’re all about disclo and that’s your best stuff, I’ll evaluate it. On a different but related note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." Finally: I don't need theory to be in shell format, but it does make flowing easier. If you're not sure about what I might think about the Prog you wanna run, feel free to ask me before the round. In short, as long as it is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your violations are real and/or impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. And, to be clear, DON’T READ TRICKS IN FRONT OF ME.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

CONGRESS

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school when judging this event insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course, I want good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies), and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chain, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningfully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a really strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, and call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turn to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when I judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. See the Equity statement at the top.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Hey!

I’m Ginny Kim. I competed in Congressional Debate all 4 years of high school on the national circuit, making finals at Harvard, NCFL, Sunvite, GMU, Bronx, and more. I’m a Ridge High School Alum and currently a freshman at Rutgers University majoring in Biological Sciences with a double minor in Statistics and Business Management.

Overall: As a congressional debater, you are here to convince me to pass or fail the bill - delivery and content go hand in hand with this. The best persuader wins.

Presence: Don’t be afraid to take risks, and have your own style. Memorable Intros and conclusions are important contributors. I will note who won each cross block and take note. I LOVE a good rhetoric line.

Content: I strongly believe any speech of the round from sponsorship to a speech given in the 12th cycle can be a round winning speech. Any speech after the sponsor should respond and tie with other speakers, and, of course, display round adaptability. I believe even the sponsor should pre-refute to the negation. I do not like multiple speeches in a row on one side- that being said, flip for your own good. Flipping will not make up for a bad speech.

There is a CLEAR difference between crystallizing the round versus rehashing. Refutation is not mentioning other’s names and going off claims of arguments, but has to be substantive and actually responding to their argument’s link. I love unique speech structures that are still easy to follow: multiple warrants, unified args, surprise me!

Argumentation: CLARITY IS KEY! It must be understandable, if I can not understand it- I can not flow it. Your argument should at the very least have a logical base. Stock argument is not a bad argument- it’s simple and clean unless it's already been said. Your argument should not be a stack of cards but have warrant and analysis. I love a good framework that organizes the debate and sets your upper ground on the round. Impacting is critical and necessary to make your mark in the debate.

PRESIDING OFFICERS: Your job is to make sure the round is efficient and FAIR. If we are running low on time, please be fast and cut down on your speaking. Mistakes aren’t the end all be all, but if it's disturbing the round- then it will affect your ranks. A seamless PO will be top 4 in my ranks.

Take every round as a learning experience, and make sure to have fun and enjoy!! Don't hesitate to reach out for questions and advice- My email is gk576@scarletmail.rutgers.edu :D

I am a second year judge. When I judge I emphasize the style (persuasiveness, confidence, and level of engagement) and content (use of facts and citations, organization of argument, and clarity) equally. One thing I do NOT like is overly aggressive questioning. Ask good and thoughtful questions, but give the responder time to answer. Do not cut them off before giving them a chance to respond.

When judging congress, I am looking for speeches that start with an engaging AGD, that is clever but concise - get to the meat of your speech efficiently. I appreciate signposting for your speech; again concise and specific. I will not hold you to verbatim restatements of points, but I like to have a guide to what I will be listening for with regard to your arguments. I expect at least one unbiased source for each of your points, particularly with rebuttal speeches. I will be less inclined to believe your arguments without them. Your rebuttal speeches need to really focus in on clashes you have with speeches having been given within the round. I'm not interested in "speculative rebuttals" of arguments that your opponents have not yet addressed. Any direct rebuttals need to be attached to specific arguments from the session. Having said that, new areas of argument that have not yet been addressed by the chamber are welcome, but need to be signposted as such. You will win favor from me especially if it is introduced to further debate on a bill that may have started to lapse into repetitiveness.

As far as presentation style is concerned, I will be looking for clear and clean articulation, assertive and authoritative (but NOT aggressive) tone, and a relaxed, engaging verbal and non-verbal delivery.

Hi!

My name is Anuj Krishnan and I am a first year undergraduate student here at Princeton University. I debate with the Princeton Debate Panel and my experience is primarily with Canadian National Debate Style, American Parliamentary Debate, and British Parliament.

I will flow but anything too fast will go beyond me. Well-warranted arguments and weighing in later speeches are the biggest items I am looking for. I will also take into consideration procedure and to what extent are you able to shape or move the debate. I prefer that speakers engage with the audiences and other participates and are not simply reading from paper.

I have been a coach for about 16 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Hi! My name is Michael Moschello, and I am a Congressional Debate alumnus studying at Stevens Institute of Technology. I competed on the national circuit for 4 years and am now studying Computer Engineering – something completely different from Congress. While congress and computers are never synonymous given how old capitol hill has gotten, what I got the most out of competing was how to deliver an impactful message. So TLDR make an impact in the chamber – now into the specifics.

LD Specific:

Speaking: Please speak clearly and cogently. I am a former congress competitor, so I value how arguments are delivered. I need to understand your speech to understand your argument.

Congress:

The debate: Congress is a group event, and you need to make yourself known in the chamber. What that means is that as a judge I am looking for active participation in the round. This comes from the content of your speech down to how you conduct yourself with your peers. In your speeches I look for speakers that explain their arguments well with warranting, data, and explains to the chamber the impact their point makes. Include rhetoric and refutation, but don’t just name drop people, tell me why their argument is flawed and how your side wins. Additionally, I believe that every speaker has a unique role depending on when they give their speech and how much that speech contributes to the debate at a point in time. This comes down to how much impact that speech contributes to the debate (aka don’t give a constructive as the last speech of the round).

Speaking: Make sure you are speaking to engage the chamber – convince me. Your speech reflects your personality so don’t copy and paste arguments and rhetoric from ChatGPT. Make it a reflection about you and what you stand for, so speak with passion and explain your advocacy (not something that you are giving word for word that you memorized (with a few exceptions)). Also, don’t be afraid to add humor in your speeches.

Mechanics: Congress is dynamic and there is never a one speech fits all approach for the round. Ensure you include rhetoric and refutation as the round progresses while weighing impact to prove why your side wins. Also, you are not loyal to one side of the round. If there are several speeches in a row on the same side those speeches will not rank highly. I will reward those who flip for debate but be subtle. Those who run the round with their speech will rank highly.

Finally, Presiding Officers: You should be invisible. Your job is to run the round smoothly and not for you to give a speech. Be assertive and quick. Mistakes happen, but it is how you handle them.

Have fun! Be respectful. Be yourself and be confident. Feel free to email me at mmoschel@stevens.edu if you have any questions or concerns. Good luck!

I am a former speech competitor and current speech & debate coach. I lean on the traditional/lay side. Basic rules to follow:

1. Please be respectful to all persons involved, and refrain from foul language
2. Speak well - meaning no spreading, enunciate, and do not assume I "know" the case you are running. If I struggle to follow your point, then it will not be included in my flow.
3. I want to see that you know your own case. It is not as convincing if you are just quickly reading through many cards which you did not construct yourself.
4. Weigh impacts (particularly in PF) - please illustrate a picture of your case's "world" vs. the other case's "world."
5. Stay on topic. No Ks or Theory. I am open to counter-plans.
6. I will not disclose the result of the round unless the tournament has required me to do so.

If I need to be included on a chain or follow a doc, my email is thomas.g.noone@gmail.com - but please do not email me for any other reason (i.e. post-decision)

Hi, I’m Sebastian Saenz. I graduated from Phoenix Country Day School in Arizona in 2024 and now study math and econ at Duke. I competed in debate for 4 years, mainly in congressional debate but I also did pf, extemp, and a few other events.

Congress:

The most important thing I look for is good and clean argumentation. If you have the best argument in the round but it's super confusing it wont work. I won't be too nitpicky with any warrants or links but if an argument doesn't make sense I’ll point that out. You don't need to have evidence every other sentence, but as long as you have some cards, strong analysis, and a good argument I will like that.

Make sure you interact with the round. After the first two speeches you need to integrate your argument into the round, explain why it matters and tell me why your argument helps your side win the debate. I am a huge fan of weighing. You don't need to use debate jargon, just explain why your argument wins the debate for your side and make it clean and accessible. If you weigh well you will probably do well on my ballot.

I will almost always rank a good PO in my top 4. Make sure you know your stuff and don't make mistakes. If you do it's not the end of the world, just handle them well and you’ll be fine. I presided a lot when I competed so I get it, nobody’s perfect just be confident and lead the round.

I reward people who do what the round needs. Adapt your speeches to what the round needs, the speech you come into the round with probably won't be what you deliver, lean into that. Things like giving a sponsorship when nobody has one or flipping when nobody else will will reflect very well on my ballot. I've seen enough rounds where nobody was willing to do that and I don't want to sit through that.

Be original and be entertaining. Anything you can do that is memorable, unique, and will keep me engaged for your entire speech will almost always help you in ranks and be reflected in your ballot.

The most important thing, be yourself and have fun! Above anything else this activity is meant to help you learn so email me at sebastiansaenz103@gmail.com if you ever have any questions about your ballots, your performance, or anything else!

I am a parent in my second year of judging Congress. I was a high school debater and also did a graduate degree in theater directing, so I have some experience assessing speech and performance. I like clear speaking, clear thinking, confident presentation and rational arguments. I take notes throughout the session and record who speaks, how often, and key arguments. I don't like debaters who show off or attack others. I expect everyone to behave professionally, with decorum and respect for all participants and judges. I'll do my best to give you impartial feedback that helps you improve. Have fun!

I was a three-year extemper and have some experience with Declamation as well. Although I'm relatively new to judging debate, I have general speech and debate knowledge and will evaluate all arguments critically. Treat me as a relatively lay judge, but know that I will be timing speeches and flowing extensively. Though I'll appreciate and consider all arguments, elements of truth and logic are very important. That said, I do not evaluate theory or appreciate K debate. As always, be respectful and courteous to your opponents, and have a good time!

I'm not very fancy with my language, so put simply, here's some general things I look for across the multiple debate styles:

-Clear articulation of arguments with evidence

-I not only like to see how you substantiate your claims and ideas, but also I like to see how you make them interact with those of other members of the round (this just really engages me).

-I was not a debate competitor when I was in high school, so I don't know all the terminology, but I'm familiar with most. Therefore, it's not really the terminology that impresses me, but rather your knowledge and comprehension of the topic.

-I like for you to give context to your arguments. I like to know that you fully comprehend what you're presenting. I love a deep level of analysis to the topic, especially during cross ex (although I'm guilty of getting lost with the unfamiliar- so what). If you know what you're talking about, then you know.

-I like to see competitors advance the debate; don't stick around to the same points unless you have something new to offer.

-Lastly, I'm not a brainiac (although sometimes I try to be), so I always feel like it's the competitor's job to help me understand the topic as much as possible, without watering down the content. Relating the topic as much as possible to someone who doesn't necessarily keep up with all the current events is key.

Hi!

If you have any questions on what is on your ballot, need advice, or are adding me to an email chain, please use my email: olivia.taboada@temple.edu

About me: I am currently a student at Temple University, where I am majoring in Management Information Systems. I'm the incoming Finance VP of Alpha Xi Delta (ask me abt sorority life i'll talk your ear off) and the President of Temple's Model UN team. As a competitor, I competed in both Congressional Debate and World Schools in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and on National circuits.

~~~~~

LD/PF:

I'm expecting a traditional debate. Treat me more as a lay judge when it comes to K's and any sort of jargony case work. I can keep up, but err on the side of caution when introducing these kinds of contentions. For spreading, I am not the most experienced in ensuring your whole case will be put on my flow, so only do so if it's entirely necessary. I'd like access to any email chains that come of the round, use my email mentioned above.

Congress:

I'm expecting the round to be really dynamic. I expect by the third and fourth speakers to be incorporating flow and weighing into their speeches, and by the end of the round to be solely crystals. This isn't to say new information cannot be brought up, as it is effective, but your speeches shouldn't only be introducing new contentions. Essentially, I'm looking for more clash over constructive. For questioning, please do not abuse the time that you are given, this goes for questioner and speaker. I expect cut and dry questions and answers, so we get the most conductive block possible. If you are presiding officer, you will start in the middle of my ranks and work your way up or down dependent on your efficiency and efficacy. Remember, your ballot doesn't end when you stop giving speeches, questioning and presence in the chamber are also important.

World Schools:

Same sort of layout here with PF/LD. While I do have more experience in WSD than PF, treat me as a lay judge here. I take a bit more time to fully assess a principle argument than a practical one, so try to develop this argument a little more. Otherwise, I expect a very traditional round in WSD terms. If you are a team that tends to knock during speeches, please switch to a less interruptive action (i.e. snapping) so I can hear the full argument.

Speech: Be clear, and make sure your body language and voice complement each other. I love jokes, but only if they're ones I can relate to.

LD (Lincoln-Douglas): Speed is only useful if you can maintain clarity and conciseness. If you're unsure about balancing both, it's better to slow down. Strong arguments are important, but without proper warranting, they won’t count for much in my book.

Be genuine. If you don't believe in the claim or topic, it's better not to argue it. I value authenticity in the round.

I know rounds can get long and tiring—for you and for me! So, try to incorporate something memorable (in a good way), which will help me remember you and potentially rank you higher!

Overall: Engage me with what you're doing, be kind, and create an enjoyable experience for everyone.

Note: If it’s not already obvious, I’m a Lay Judge. However, I still consider arguments (in debate) and performance (in speech) seriously when evaluating.

Team coach and experienced judge. My strengths lie with judging speech, but I am still a competent debate judge. I am fine with any rate of speech. I strongly prefer organized arguments backed with clear and cited evidence. I do prefer the use of off-time roadmaps to maintain my own flow. I am more likely to give you the round based on your ability to find and explicitly point out flaws in your opponent’s case/arguments than on the basis of an assertion that your case is simply better. I am very good at picking up on dropped arguments/flow and bad evidence, but will not count it against your opponent unless you specifically point it out yourself, or there are very egregious errors. I am also critical about use of time, and if a round is close, I will be more likely to grant the win to the competitor who had fuller and more effective use of time.