Do not spread, I cannot vote for you if I don't understand what you are saying. If I feel you are speaking to fast, I will only give one verbal warning to slow down.

Disclosing is at my discretion unless otherwise stated by tournament rules.

Please be respectful of your teammates/opponents.

Parent lay judge.

Prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

Hello!

Scholars, Storytellers and brilliant Social Engineers!

- I am a retired Soldier fascinated by the art of rhetoric and social change.

I am educated in Social Psychology and Human Development. I evaluated human performance over many decades across numerous intellectual disciplines. I have been to War across several countries, I am fluent in German, spent 14 years in Europe and 3 in the Middle East during my time in the Army.

If you spread, be syntactically specific and audibly discernable— if I can’t understand the argument or performance, I can’t judge fairly and specifically. I’d loathe scoring anyone poorly for lack of my basic, lexical understanding of the information.

If you “K”- it must at LEAST tie into any random assignment of resolutions. Otherwise, your opponent will win for minimum standards— DESPITE the brilliance of your activism!!! One can be BOTH clever AND oppositionally defiant of a system. In fact, it’s the only way a good story can make new games.

YOU storytellers are our very best hope for humanity’s future!

BE ON TIME. HAVE YOUR STUFF READY!

Review your appearance. Comb your hair. Clean your glasses. Check your Zippers. Tuck your Pockets back in. Don’t be jingling a ring of Keys on a Biker Chain!!!

TIE YOUR SHOES!

Be ready and practiced. Be expressive, be emotive and CARE at least a smidge? I’ll be able to feel what you feel… and that goes a very long way between Human Beings.

GOOD LUCK!
Michael Bryant

PS- Luck = Preparation + Opportunity + Maneuverability

hi! I'm looking forward to judging and getting more involved with participating in tournaments from the judging perspective rather than the competitor one. I'll go into a little bit about myself and my experience in Speech and Debate and then my specific preferences whenever it comes to all of the events that I may judge! I competed in Speech and Debate all four years of high school and primarily focused on speech and interpretation events, however, there was a lengthy period of time that I participated in policy debate. In policy debate I broke to outrounds at Harvard and mainly competed in the TFA and UIL circuits. In speech/interpretation events I mostly competed into Domestic Extemp and Humorous Interpretation on both the national and TFA circuits- breaking to outrounds at tournaments like the Longhorn Classic, TFA State, UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the NIETOC. Here are my specific preferences when it comes to judging debate rounds:

Debate-

Policy: I'm a tab judge, so I really don't care what you run and I will vote on whatever arguments are made during the round. I really enjoy listening to k arguments but please please don't just say a bunch of random stuff, make sure that there is actually a connection to the topic. Topicality is the main thing that I really am not the biggest fan of, but I love k affs and theory a lot because they provide a lot of meta debate. In regards to the flow, I think that I'm pretty good at it, but I don't think that extremely fast spreading is good for debate even if you're getting more information in-- it almost defeats the purpose in my opinion. The job of the affirmative is to propose a plan or advocacy that either proves the topic or frames why rejecting it is important is better than the status quo/neg cp or alt. The job of the neg is to prove the status quo/cp or alt is better than the affirmative advocacy or plan. This applies to theory and T in the sense that if you prove how they access the topic or utilize an argument is worse for the debate space going forward, it still weighs.

LD: I'm pretty cool with any type of argument that could be run in LD debate and I don't really have any preferences. Speed is fine just make sure that you still complete cards and are at least somewhat comprehendible. I don't really care about being on an email chain if the tournament is in person, however, I'd like to be on one for an asynchronous tournament if one is made. If any evidence is called into question, I'll ask to see it at the end of the round to determine its validity. My email is elicraddockk@gmail.com

PF: I think that it is extremely important that PF stays as a simple event that anyone can be able to easily follow and understand. With that in mind, I would like it if arguments were kept simple and speed at a normal, or slightly quicker, speed in order to stay true to PF's purpose. Putting me on an email chain shouldn't be necessary. If any evidence is called into question, I'll ask to see it at the end of the round to determine its validity.

Extemps: I like a very structured speech that is very formulaic. I will rarely give someone the 1 if they don't follow a standard extemp speech format. In extemp I also think that it is very important that you are not speaking at your judges and that it feels more like a conversation rather than a complete presentation. Humor works great whenever you try and establish that personable connection and you will definitely get bonus points if you're funny or have references to pop culture. Also ensure that you are using 5-7 sources within your speech, 4 is okay, however, more than 4 really cements that you know what you're talking about. Additionally, for me in particular, you don't have to have a day associated with your dates if you prefer to keep it to "the New York Times notes within January 2022"- year and month is cool w me. Try to be as fluent as possible, but if there are a couple of stumbles that more than likely won't play into my decision if your content is really strong. Also, try to stick to the exact wording of the question as much as possible, but if you're a word or two off that's okay!

Interp-

This is just a general note, but I will absolutely not tolerate anyone taking pieces from another person. If I can google your piece on youtube and it is extremely similar to a preexisting one, I will rank you last in the round immediately. Interp is literally short for interpretation and it is supposed to be your own interpretation of a piece of literature, not another's interpretation.

DI: I never did DI, however, I did end up watching countless rounds of it, so I have a fairly decent idea of what distinguishes good DIs. I personally prefer a more subtle take towards DI, however, ones with a louder, more powerful climax can still be better whenever it comes to rankings. I look for unique characterization and distinction and I try to see if there is some sort of discernable growth or degrowth in the progression of the story. I think that it is also important that your DI is unique to yourself. Unique topics or piece selections will get bonus points! I really enjoy listening to all kinds of stories whenever it comes to DI and I will try my best to equally evaluate all pieces even if I cannot personally relate to the topic.

HI: I love HI so much!! The three pieces that I competed with in high school for HI were Dear Evan Hansen, 10 Things I Hate About You, and Gossip Girl. I really appreciate HIs that have a super unique sense to them. This can manifest itself through taking a popular piece of media or literature and adding your own unique twist to it or just choosing something completely unexpected as your lit. Whenever it comes to HI, I genuinely value actual humor over tech because I think that's what distinguishes a good HI. Humor is extremely subjective, however, even if I don't find whatever you're doing funny, if you're creating a personable connection through the humor that YOU enjoy then you will still be ranked highly. In regards to preliminary rounds of locals/larger tournaments I'll probably vote in favor of tech, however, if you are not funny or if you don't seem to be enjoying your piece in outrounds I will rank you down- you need to be funny or at least be trying to convey the type of humor you like or else you shouldn't be doing HI. Additionally, please please please be a good sport and laugh at other competitors even if you personally don't find it funny. Being polite towards other people is another part of competition and if you are rude or disrespectful during round to other people I will drop you immediately.

PO/PRO: Same comments whenever it comes to DI and HI. For Poetry, I like there to be an appropriate mix of literature that crafts a unique story that takes into account different perspectives. This is the same thing with Prose. I like super interesting and engaging blocking as well as long as it doesn't take away from the important of the story.

Please let me know if you have any questions before or after round!!:)

I am a full Tabula Rasa judge. I allow all debate as long as it is respectful and makes a genuine effort to convince. You as the debate must frame the debate. Speed is ok, just speak clearly.

Hi I am a new parent judge! I prefer a round where we avoid spreading so I can better understand your speech.

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it. AND BE MINDFUL THAT I AM 60!! Apart from understanding your words, which I probably can in most cases, age slows down the speed of cognition. I just can’t think as fast as a young person can anymore.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..." The whole point of sources is to demonstrate you have done some reading and thinking on the topic.

Hii! I’m currently a sophomore at Columbia University majoring in Political Science-Economics (at least I hope so haha). I competed primarily in World Schools, with a side hustle in Extemp. I was ranked #10 in the nation for worlds and was part of Team Texas

WSD

I’ve competed in every speaker position so I understand most norms/expectations in this format. With that being said, these are what I value in the round:

• Clear argumentation and impact (i.e. link chain, warranting, examples are all reasonable and well-explained). Do not assume why your argument is important. Explicitly explain why I should care. I also need rational reasoning as to why your argument is realistic and applicable to the world. However, this doesn’t mean an excess reliance on examples. You just need to explain why actors/stakeholders usually act that way.

• Sign-posting (Organization is a crucial element in elevating your style and content. Signpost makes sure that we’re both on the same page.

• Crystallization and Weighing. The hardest part of the RFD is deciding the winner (in most cases). To make my job easier, you must engage with your opponent’s argumentation (through refutation or clash). When weighing, you must be charitable (i.e. you can’t compare your highest ground to their lowest ground; it doesn’t help my decision). The latter half of the debate should be spent on crystalizing clashes and explaining why your side outweighs them.

• Consistent Narrative. Crafting a central narrative around your bench is crucial to elevating your content and strategy. Please do not contradict/throw your teammates under the bus. Make sure you guys communicate team strategy before the round.

• Engagement in the debate. This isn’t just offering POIs and accepting them. It’s being respectful towards everyone in the debate. I also encourage bench communication (but don’t be excessively loud).

On the other hand, I will dock speaks/get very annoyed at any of these:

• Framing debates. Models and definition disagreements should be resolved by the second speech at the latest. I am a rational judge and will accept the fairest interpretations for both sides.

• Barricading with POIs.

• Unengagement. Please make sure you clash with your opponents. Also treading the middle ground to co-op your opponents’ arguments makes the debate incredibly hard to adjudicate and doesn’t lead to fruitful discourse. There are some instances where the middle ground can be used, but I will need explicit clarification on what is your uniqueness.

Speech:

In platform events, I’ll always value content over delivery

• Your utmost priority should be topic selection, evidence, analysis, and a cohesive narrative. I want to see your passion and the techniques you utilize to convey such messages. I’m also a big proponent of structure and organization, so please ensure your speech reflects thoughtful organization.

• However, that doesn’t mean delivery should be ignored. I value enunciation, pacing, your position in the room, etc. You should use the delivery as a way to enhance your content.

In Interp events, I’m not the most well-verse (and I’m sorry if you have me as a judge). I think delivery and content still go hand-in-hand here. Just make sure you have all of the components and deliver it confidently.

PF/LD/Policy:

I’m least educated in these events given my background (besides competing in LD once and judging a few PF/Policy rounds). However, that doesn’t mean you are allowed to lie or make up rules when I’m judging. Here’s what I look for

• Argumentation (link chain, evidence, extension of argument)

• Strategic use of time (during questioning, speech, or cooperation with teammate if present)

• I can’t handle spreading. Please speak at a reasonable pace (I can tolerate speaking a tad fast but not outright)

Besides that, have fun and be nice to each other. My email is chinh.le@columbia.edu if you have any questions.

Hi! I'm Kate, I competed for Plano West in extemporaneous speaking. I was a 2x TFA runner-up and an NSDA / NIETOC finalist. Here's my paradigm:

Congress – be respectful and source / warrant your arguments

Extemp – answer the question

Debate – lay judge delivery, flow judge content

Oratory/Info – source what you're saying and have fun saying it – teach me something new

Speech and debate should be fun! Ask me any questions of clarification if you have them before the round.

My name is Adeline, and I am a current freshman at Trinity University. My passion for performing ignited in elementary school when I took on the lead role of Pinocchio in "My Son Pinocchio Jr." This early experience set me on a path of nuanced acting and seven years of dedication to Speech & Debate. Notably, I was the runner-up in POI at the 2024 Harvard National Tournament. That same year, I secured 15th place at the NSDA Nationals. In DUO, my partner and I claimed the championship at the Longhorn Classic Tournament and finished as the runner-up at the Tournament of Champions 2023.

As an interp kid myself, I look for those who are able to be vulnerable and raw when portraying your characters. This means putting intention behind each and every word, do not say things just for the sake of saying it. A performance where one is able to visualize their characters and carry out certain nuances that are interconnected with the character's motives is what I hope to see. Not to mention, I need to see variation in how you articulate your message, such as varying the tone throughout the piece. There needs to be a distinct build towards your climax, and once you get there, do not hesitate to go all out. But don't get confused with forcing your emotions, it won't have the same effect. Your characters, intentions, message need to be authentic. I also appreciate how a performer utilizes their surroundings and binder to effectively convey a story. Blocking can really enhance and help illustrate a character's environment, so feel free to use your space and binder creatively! Last but not least, projection. This is key for me to know who displays confidence in a room with other competitors. Do not let the others get to your head, focus on YOUR message.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

Hi, my name is Aliza! I competed in a variety of speech and interp events during high school, including HI, OO, Duo, and Duet. I went to Nationals for HI in 2022 and for Duo Interp in 2024. I was also semi-finalist for Duet Acting at TFA state in 2024.

Speech: A clearly structured speech is key. I should be able to summarize your points in my own words by the end. By attention to how you are moving, your movements should have purpose! Choosing when to enunciate and the rhythm of your speaking is also something I pay attention to. Even a generic speech can be elevated by the way that you choose to speak and engage your audience. However, more than anything, the content of your speech should be captivating, backed by evidence, and run smoothly.

Interp: I value meaningful blocking that is clean and effective. Blocking does not have to be over the top to be good! (However, big blocking is great when done right). Inventive blocking that relies on details and adds to the story is great. Specifically for partner events, bouncing off each other and being in sync is what takes your chemistry and piece to the next level. Characterization is huge, stick to your character throughout. Also, intros are a very important part of interp events, and sometimes undervalued. Well written intros work to solidify the meaning of a piece and engage with the audience---which is crucial.

Good luck!

I'm a pretty chill judge. You can either call me Judge, Jay, Jaydev, or whatever else gets my attention. But a little about myself, I'm an alumni of Elkins Speech and Debate with an accomplished resume, so I can pretty confidently say I know debate. I also have done interp so I know what I am doing when I am judging it. Just be nice to me and your competitors, don't be that guy who rubs the room the wrong way, because it also rubs me the wrong way as well. Also be confident, just do your best because that's all you can do, so don't worry about the result. I have been in your shoes before so just give it all you have and I'll judge you fairly.

Interp:

I like to be entertained but do your own thing. Just get into, if your piece is supposed to be funny, make me laugh (I laugh at anything), if your piece is deep and emotional, make me cry (I cry easily).

Debate:

I have done LD and Congress, but my primary debate event is World Schools. I am a national qualifier who broke to trips in 2023 and 2024 so I know what I am doing in debate. I look for a clash within a debate, as most argumentation is neutralized because both sides bring in rebuttals. Explain why, head to head, your argument is better than theirs, and if you have to in your debate event, WEIGH! I LOVE WEIGHING ❤️. It's my favorite so please give me weighing, it makes my decisions much easier to render. One last note, tell me why your side wins, its just good practice for any debate event, but telling your judge why you win makes it easier for your judge to render a winner and understand the debate.

BIG NOTES:

HAVE FUN - that's why we are here, rounds shouldn't get too serious or toxic, if I see toxic or bad debate ethics I'm docking points, it's that simple,

DON'T SPREAD (unless ur in CX) - I HATE SPREADING, mostly because I write slowly, so don't spread unless you have to.

Extemp and Speech Event:

I love extemp and other speech events. I did impromptu and extemp throughout my debate career, and what I want to see out of your speech are two things. I want to see clear and coherent speech. If you have to slow down to be more fluent in your speech, do so, I'd rather hear a more fluent speech with terrible content than a messy speech that has good content (not really but you get the point). And secondly, have fun with it. In these speech events you're supposed to unleash your inner style of speech and I want to see that. So be funny, be charismatic, and just make the speech sound inviting rather than a PSA or public announcement.

Eric Mueller Judging Philosophy

I debated in college and was a collegiate debate coach for 15 years. I was research assistant at Guyer High School for five years.

Generally I like you to tell me how I vote. I have no natural hatreds for any argument although I am not high on tricky theory or standards debates. Otherwise I see myself as about as tabula rasa as you can get. I mean that. Tell me how to vote and on what argument and I will genuinely evaluate it. And I am willing to vote on almost anything.

I like evidence debates where people pull out warrants from cards and I like the last speaker to explain why the other side loses and they win. Think offense. I like debaters who demonstrate their intelligence by understanding their arguments. I like to have fun too. So enjoy yourself.

I give pretty good speaks I think. 29s and above in solid debates. I always disclose.

That's the short form.

More....

I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.

I read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here. Explain why your evidence should be preferred.

I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.

Put me on your email chain. My email address is eric.mueller@rcisd.org

I also often break with the conventional format. I am willing to vote for kritikal negative and affirmative arguments. So, yes. I will vote for your kritikal affirmative. In fact, I would prefer the negative debate about the offense the affirmative advocates rather than a constant resort to framework debate. That said, I will also vote negative on framework against kritikal cases. However it often comes down to an impact debate that many negatives are not very prepared for and the affirmative is usually very prepared to debate. I am always looking for something new.

It is the job of the negative to explain how K functions with respect to affirmative solvency. I think that needs to be hashed out in more specific ways than I often see occur. How do advantages with short time-frames factor into the question of whether to vote on K first? It is more clear for me with things like settler colonialism than it is with Marxism, for example. But don't assume. Take the time to explain. Make the reason it comes first very clear. How does the K undercut their turns? Be specific. Use examples. Don't make it just a non-unique disadvantage with a floating pic alternative. Sell it.

I also think there are reasons why there might be advantages left for the affirmative even given the criticism provided by the K. I think sometimes more specific affirmative evidence proves the plan can still have advantages to weigh vs. K impacts (as in Marxism) especially when the time frames are quick. Why does K come first? Has that been explored?

Framework against critical cases:

I also believe that it is necessary to answer clearly case claims by critical affirmatives that answer the voting criteria on framework. Think of framework as the disad, and case arguments as solvency that allows the framework disad to outweigh the case. Framing matters. I think "competitive equity" as a standard against critical affirmatives is often untenable for the negative. Focus more on the nature of voices and representational aspects of the need for grammar. Think semiotics. That makes voting negative on T easier in these cases. You need offense, not just terminal defense. T must be framed as offense against the case.

Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.

I’m not a big theory guy. I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary.

All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR.

Some brief background on me: My personal experience is mostly in congressional debate although I have competed multiple times in extemp. When it comes to my achievements, I was the first in my high school debate team history to qualify for NYSFL States as a freshman. I made it to TOC, NSDA Nationals, and NCFL Nationals. I have provided an outline to how I rank in congressional debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE JUDGING RUBRIC

I have crafted a comprehensive rubric delineating my judging paradigm for Congressional Debate. Recognizing that not all speeches or rounds are uniform, consider this paradigm a general guide for evaluating Congressional Debate rounds:

SESSION PARTICIPATION

• Speakers will face penalties for addressing fewer bills than the allotted time permits, typically two speeches per session.
• Recency-related issues leading to a speaker's inability to address bills will not result in penalties.

Note: Disapproval of pre-debate base-x bill agreements that are subsequently exploited, though not against formal NSDA rules, may lead to the deduction of Parliamentary Points.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 - AUTHORSHIP

• Focuses on introducing a specific problem, explaining bill impacts, and proposing effective solutions.
• Presents arguments requiring strong negation refutation for an impactful debate.

6 - AUTHORSHIP

• Effectively explains net benefits, discussing essential bill components without specific references.
• Provides arguments with some strong impacts.

4 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to net benefits generally, lacking specific details.
• Fails to provide strong impacts.

2 - AUTHORSHIP

• Refers to an unclear problem or weakly addresses solutions.
• Demonstrates minimal understanding of the bill's specifics.

REFUTATION, EXTENSION, CRYSTALLIZATION

• Refutation, extension, and crystallization criteria are evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the strength and clarity of the speaker's arguments, impacts, and overall contribution to the debate.

DELIVERY

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Demands attention through effective eye contact and vocal variation.
• Clear, compelling, and confidently delivered speech.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Speaks clearly with sufficient eye contact.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Makes poor eye contact but maintains a steady pace.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Occasionally looks at the pad, challenging to follow at times.

1 - INSUFFICIENT

• Constantly looks at the pad, speech flow is disrupted.

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC

• Evaluated on a scale from 8 to 1 based on the clarity, validity, and support of the speaker's claims.

ORGANIZATION

8 - EXEMPLARY

• Engaging intro, well-developed arguments, and a cleverly tied conclusion.
• Natural transitions enhancing cohesion.

6 - EFFECTIVE

• Interesting intro, clear transitions between arguments.

4 - ADEQUATE

• Well-developed arguments, but transitions are boring or unclear.

2 - NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

• Speech lacks cohesion, difficult to follow.

Note: Time deductions apply for speeches falling below 15 seconds or exceeding 10 seconds beyond the time limit.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS

• Responses rated from 4 to 0 based on clarity, confidence, and ability to stay on message.

PARLIAMENTARY POINTS

• Presiding Officers assessed based on Parliamentary Procedure, Recognition, Control, Communication, and Decorum.

ASSESSMENT

• Points deducted or added based on participation in the chamber, solving problems, raising motions, and asking questions.

This rubric aims to provide a nuanced evaluation of Congressional Debate performances, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment of competitors' legislative abilities.

Presiding Officers will be evaluated on a comparable scale, utilizing distinct criteria to enable their ranking alongside speakers in the room. The assessment encompasses the following key areas:

• PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE: Examining the explanation, knowledge, and effective execution of parliamentary procedures.

• RECOGNITION: Assessing fairness and efficiency in recognizing speakers, adhering to speaker precedence and recency, and avoiding bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

• CONTROL: Evaluating the ability to lead in challenging situations, uphold decorum among delegates in the chamber, exercise sound judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency.

• COMMUNICATION: Reviewing the clarity and conciseness in explaining rulings.

• DECORUM: Maintaining a respectful presence in the room, with ratings on a scale of 0-4. Exceptionally poor decorum, similar to speakers, will result in a reduction of Parliamentary Points.

This comprehensive evaluation framework ensures that Presiding Officers can be ranked on par with speakers, considering their proficiency in parliamentary procedures, fair recognition practices, effective control of the chamber, clear communication, and respectful demeanor.

Rehder Myhre's Congress Paradigm:

Congressional Debate Captain, Speech and Debate Vice President, Joshua High School 2022-2024, Finalist at UIL 5A State and TFA State Qualified in '24.

Currently a freshman at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. ROLL TIDE ROLL!

This may seem like a ramble. You have been warned.

First and foremost, this is a competition. I appreciate tactical use and the knowing / tracking of one's own recency and precedence (in particular in the UIL circuit, where wifi is banned and thus you are unable to share a singular PO sheet). Moving the previous question on your own volition when debate is tiring is greatly appreciated.

Also, should go without saying, but nothing offensive. If you think its iffy, best not to cross that line, no matter what opinions you hold.

POs: I was a presiding officer in high school, and I understand how it can feel to run a great chamber just to be left off the rankings or failing to break. I will generally start the PO at the last breaking spot for any chamber that is not finals. You will move up from there based on the quality of the room and how well you preside. If the room is subpar and you make no mistakes, than a 1 is not out of the realm of possibility. However, mistakes will drag you down. I will be keeping track of precedence and recency specifically to point out where you may have errored to help you improve. Don't stress, run your chamber efficiently, equitably, transparently, and with speed, and you will almost always move on. Keep in mind your word economy, don't say too much or be too flashy trying to impress, it will have the opposite effect on me. Be honest if you make a mistake, it will bring you down less. Make your best effort to stop pointless motion wars, I did not like them as a PO, as a competitor, and I do not like them as a judge. I understand sometimes you are put in tough situations, as long as you follow the rules of order and keep the chamber in order, you'll be fine. For finals, I can't exactly guarantee any standing, but you won't be forgotten.

For the rest of you, I appreciate good contentions and scholarly or otherwise non-periodical evidence. Your points must be backed up with some sort of evidence, and you must be able to provide analysis of that evidence that makes sense. Don't just spit numbers out at me, tell me what they mean. I can deal with speed, but not CX level spreading. If you want to talk that fast, go compete in CX. Vocal delivery is important to me. Be loud, but not yelling. In terms of physical presence, be confident, engage with the chamber. Try not to read too much from your reference material, whether it be a legal pad, paper, tablet or similar. I do not appreciate the use of laptops, or anything that takes two hands to hold, and your rank will suffer if you use one. I have a certain tolerance for reading IF you make no fluency errors. Fluency errors while reading are not excusable. Overall, try to keep eyes towards the chamber >50% of the time, and move around the chamber throughout your speech (without swaying too much while standing). Distracting gestures are terrible, do not do them. That includes the finger wag, finger over the page, you all know it, I do not like it. Make simple, meaningful gestures. Lastly, don't give a speech just to give it. If your precedence sucks, consider giving a speech on the next item. Crystals are kind of lame to me, but I understand why they exist. I just don't want to hear 4 or 5 of them in a round. Similarly, don't give a late constructive, just know what speeches to give when. If you use the same evidence as someone else without providing new analysis, or just verbatim use the exact same quote, it will drop you massively. Adapt in round. Also, CLASH. Congress IS a debate event. You need to clash if you aren't the author or sponsor. I'm not talking about simply referencing either, great clash is key to a good speech beyond the first. Come prepped please, shouldn't have to say that.

I will be less strict on these for novices. You guys are still learning, so it is understandable. (Do novices even read paradigms?)

In the end, just be you, and do the best you can!

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

My focus will be more on evidence, reasoning, logic, substances of the presentation, and argument etc. and less about physical traits such as loudness, speed, body language, etc.

My email is mingtianni@gmail.com. Please send the doc trails if applicable. It helps me evaluate better. Thank you.

Hi! I'm a new parent judge. I will mostly judge off of your confidence in speaking, your memorization (extemp), and your overall performance in the round.

I have been teaching Theatre/ Speech and Debate for 34 years, and participated in High School. I am an IE Coach primarily. Although I have coached and judged debate rounds for LD, PF, and most recently Congress and CX.

Articulation is key for me. I need to understand you, the use of the voice and body is also pretty important. The emotional connection to the character needs to be very clear, and there should be motivational beats that I discover in your performance.

Simply put, I am looking for the total package for performers, someone who can immerse themselves in a character but also show me differentiation between characters.

TFA/ NSDA IE Coach:

24 years / TFA Hall of Fame member

Coached 2 National DI Champions: 2000 and 2012

Coached 2 TFA DI Champions; 1 HI Champion; 1 Duet Champion

Numerous Rounds at Nationals; several TFA DI, HI, DUO Finalists

UIL One Act play winning director ; State / Region competitors , 1st Runner Up, Samuel French Award winner

Current UIL One Act Play Adjudicator/ judging Zone through Region

UIL Congress State Coach in LD, CX and Congress 2019, 2021

UIL State Coach Prose

Professional Actor (AEA) for 25 years; BFA in Acting University of Texas, MFA in Acting the American Conservatory Theater

Even though I am currently coaching LD debate my focus is on IE'S

Medium use of spreading

Squirrel cases that don't make any sense at all.

Extemp: Speaking 60% Supporting material ,Organization 40%

Oratory: Speaking 60% Content 40% ( less debate style more universal content with some IE touches)

IE'S : YES to teasers, open minded regarding pieces. School approval only thing that matters regarding material.

HI: don't go too far away from author's intent/ but still be creative!

Thank you!! Break Legs!!!

Experience

I used to compete in speech and debate competitions in high school, so I am familiar with most rules. I specialized in speech events, especially in Extemp.

Debate

Please be respectful during all rounds, especially to your opponent. Please don't spread, as it makes it hard for me to follow. Technical language is good as long as you back it up with clear sources. I prefer for clearly stated values/value criteria/frameworks/impacts/etc., during first constructive because it allows me to easier follow your arguments. I try to write down all key arguments and everything said during cx/crossfires. I find good cx questions/good answers during cx to be detrimental to the debate. Good luck, you all got this and don't forget to have fun!

Speech

Please be respectful during all rounds. Try your best to speak clearly, enunciate your words, and make eye contact when possible. I prefer for speeches to have a clear intro, body, and conclusion, separated by transition words or pacing because it makes it easier for me to follow. Hooks or attention-grabbing devices are highly encouraged. I also prefer if you can clearly state your thesis and impact, to make it easier for me to follow. Speech has many broad events with specific rules, so just stick to those rules and you will be fine. Good luck, you got this and don't forget to have fun!

Hi!

My name is Annika. I am a senior at the University of Washington. I did speech/debate in high school. You are debating topics that influence real people and you are debating against real people so understand the weight of what you are saying. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates or is abusive to their opponent for any reason.

That being said, be kind, have fun and take risks!

Please signpost, esp if you are spreading. IF you have a complicated argument, give me a roadmap, otherwise I can find my way. If I am not flowing your argument, you likely need to slow down, ie if you can see me flowing you're good. Make sure to adjust this for online rounds where mics are definitely often an issue. Make sure you also account for your other judges and shift to lay if needed. Reiterate your weighing mechanism and impact calculus throughout the round (especially your impact calculus). I prefer unique arguments but if you can't connect them and impact calc to the debate at hand, you will not convince me. In cross do not avoid a question, I would rather you explain when it isn't relevant/why you can't address it rather than ignore it. Cross should be conducted respectfully.

Respect opponents! Even if you do not agree with your opponents arguments, you can be assertive without being rude.

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage

I am a parent judge. Please be respectful and clear in your presentation. Good luck!

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.