Hi everyone! My name is Rachel (she/her). For a bit of background about me, I'm currently a college freshman in NYC and I competed in Congressional Debate all four years of high school. Most of my paradigm is yapping about congress, but a TLDR is to be a good debater, and also a good person. As much as this category is about debating and proving each other wrong, it is also about building a relationship with your chamber over the course of the day, working together to pick the best legislation to debate, and making sure that everyone gets a chance to compete and learn. Be a part of the good of congress, not the bad! More on that towards the end of the ballot that I highly recommend you read as a good rule of thumb for how I expect round etiquette to be.

If you're reading for PF/debate, skip to the end (but maybe consider reading how I feel about your in-round etiquette as well)

* Important things! Read here for some quick tips to boosting your rank *

Depending on how the round is, the competitive level, and other factors of your individual performance, I really heavily value some aspects of your performance. For example, not reading off won't take you from my 8 to my 1, but it might take you from an 8 to a 6 if others of similar rank read off their intro, and not doing these things can easily knock you down a few ranks. The following things will probably weigh heavily in whether you are ranked above another senator of similar performance:

Not reading off your intro (or being pad reliant in general) This is your time to make a first impression! Captivate the judges and audience; I want to see some showmanship in your intro. Whether that's an anecdote, shocking fact, or going immediately down the line and calling out opposing senators, your intro is the time to show me what to expect of your speaking style, presentation, and argument. Don't read it off! If you can, keep that energy throughout your speech. It might be hard at first, but speeches given more extemporaneously have better fluency, tone, and speed than those read off. It is such a good and important skill, and will really set you apart in really close rounds. However, I've realized there is a growing sense that long = good with intros; get to the point as I'd rather a short intro and super in depth contentions than a stylistically impressive intro but underdeveloped impacts further into the speech.

Referencing other senators This should honestly be done if you're anyone who is not the author/sponsor speaking. This is a debate event, and debate cannot happen if everyone is giving constructives, nor can it happen without tying your clash points to a specific speaker on the opposing side. Your speech must be evolving with the flow of the round. Whether that's adding new data to compliment your pre-existing point, adding names, or completely reworking something for the sake of debate, be improvisational! Make this interesting! You should be referencing the other side for clash, as well as referencing your own side to build off of their impacts.

For the love of all things happy and joyous, do not rehash This extends partially off the previous point. Now, disclaimer; I will always believe that a speech, even the lowest quality speech (barring offensive content, which we’ll get to towards the end of the paradigm), is better than no speech. I would much rather you speak and give the judges the ability to comment on your speech so you can improve than if you do not speak at all. If you think you're going to get a 9 (which, you shouldn't start off thinking negatively, but for the sake of argument), you might as well get a 9 with some critiques. You're better than you think. With that being said, especially if this is a one sided debate, please please please don't rehash. Make this interesting. You don't have to completely change your points; the difference between a constructive and a summary/extension/crystal starts with referencing other senators. Tell me why your point is different, still important, signpost heavily new data, reference other senators, ANYTHING!! Rehash is not only boring, it's not fruitful for the debate. If the point is still important, not impacted enough, or you have some groundbreaking interpretation, give us that CLEARLY. If it wasn't clear, please don't just rehash and give the same point over and over again. It will hurt your rank, greatly. Also, just because you're crystalling, doesn't mean you're safe from being considered rehash. If we've had three cycles of crystal, then your crystal has to also reference those speeches, and if it has the same content without separating yourself then I will consider it rehash and rank the previous speeches higher (if they were of similar quality).

How I feel about POs (Good news, it’s largely positive)

I spend a lot of time POing towards the tail end of my senior year, so I really recognize and value the role of a good PO. If you’re keeping track of recency, being really active in noticing time/splits issues and advising the chamber without the judges having to step in, and are pretty unnoticeable, there is no reason you won’t rank in my top 1-4 (and POs of mine have gotten the 1). I also love it if you have some sort of bit/personality in your procedural spiel; make this fun! However, on the other side of things, because I have po’d a lot, I know what a bad PO looks like. Noticeable mistakes, calling on the wrong speakers multiple times, and not moving the round along swiftly will probably slip you down to the 5-8 rank. Unless you are making a ton of mistakes and have zero (0) control over the chamber, you probably won’t be dropped. Also, if we're at a tournament with explicit live docs that clarify whether you are representatives or senators, then you should be reminding the chamber of this. Even if the chamber doesn’t POI you, I will probably notice big slip ups like calling speakers incorrectly. Just keep that in mind; high risk, high reward!

General things that I believe about the category and value heavily

To reiterate the last section, I really value not reading off and adapting your speech to fit the round. I also love to see participation; ask questions, volunteer to PO when no one else wants to step up, get there early and set up the agenda, and be proactive in splits issues. Being nice to your other senators, both in and out of round, is really telling of who the best legislator is. I understand how frustrating recency can be in terms of preventing asking questions, but not participating/making an effort to question (especially if you're getting brought up in a speech) will probably reflect badly on your ranks. Show the judges that you care about the round, outside of just your speeches!

In your speeches, I am looking for clear claim, warrant, data, impact (CWDI) structures. I want you to tell me what you believe, why you believe it, some data to show you’re not making it up, and why it is important that we all believe you. I welcome variances on that basic structure, but I will value a speech that contains data and impacts higher than one that may have excellent warranting, but no empirical sourcing/analysis to back it up. Impacts are not simply “this thing is bad is bad.” They are “this thing is bad, because it causes ____ to change, which in turn impacts ____ demographic, which is important to us as senators because _____.” Give me clear impacts, as they are a key weighing factor as to which side is stronger.

Also, I had some questions about this; I really don't care if you're using a legal pad, laptop, ipad, or even a sticky note. The important thing is that you're being more extemp than pre written. Also, for clarification, I will probably use the term "pad" in your ballot regardless of what you used because it is less letters than laptop or computer.

I really love crystalling and clashing with other people’s points. I want to see excellent debate skills, but also want to see equally high quality presentations. Don’t read off, give me rhetoric, make this more than just reading off reasons to pass without some appeals.

Overall, I really believe in looking for the best legislator. Advance the debate, give nuanced arguments, be helpful in the flow of the round, and you will probably get a good rank. Don’t just give your speech and not participate in the rest of the round; ask questions, defend your points in questioning blocks, and show that you are an active legislator.

It goes without saying, but any hateful language, behavior, or argumentation will be heavily penalized on my ballot. This is a debate category, but you are also all students. You are here to compete, but you are also here to learn; learning cannot happen in hostile environments. Be a part of the solution, not the problem in a growingly hostile world. I will not be a judge that drops you purely out of disagreeing with your argument, but if your argument includes unnecessarily graphic language, hateful commentary, blatantly biased sourcing, or personal attacks to your fellow senators, then it is no longer a quality argument that I can rank highly. You can make arguments without harming others.

Going alongside that, please PLEASE provide a trigger warning for graphic/explicit content. A trigger warning is saying, "Before I begin my speech, I would like to provide a trigger warning for ____," and giving the chamber a moment to prepare or exit. Honestly, regardless of the topic, there should never really be a need for trigger warnings in this category. There is a difference between impacting a difficult topic and purposefully weaponizing someone's lived experience. For example, to impact that violence is caused by the legislation's policy, stating that there is violence, who/how it impacts is sufficient and why we should care is enough; we do not need reenactments and the abuse of a real victim's story to get the point. Just be mindful, and a good rule of thumb is if it feels like too much, it is probably too much.

Hopefully, this gives you all a better idea of what I’m expecting. If you have any questions, feel free to ask throughout the course of the round and I will be happy to clarify for the sake of the chamber.

For PF/debate:
I did compete in PF a little bit (emphasis on a little), so I understand the basic argumentative structures. In general, I lean tech over truth in the way that the team that might have weaker arguments and more strategic rebuttals will probably win over a team that has stronger arguments but less strong debate skills. I will do my best to flow the entire debate, but functionally you can really consider me a lay judge with slightly above average knowledge on your topics and general debate styles. It's your category, so just make good arguments, make the other team look bad, and you'll probably get the win. You should probably err on the side of caution in how jargon-y you are and being really clear with what that jargon means if you're going to get really technical. I really value weighing of impacts, and will probably value the team that gives me the most convincing framework/weighing mechanisms higher.

I can understand a certain level of spreading, but won't be able to understand past a certain point so please don't speak super super fast unless you’re going to share your case and warn the judge and your competitor as it can be a huge barrier to understanding the round!

my email is rruggeri222@gmail.com for any email chains

Also, similar to the above on my more congress oriented paradigm, I think it's extremely distasteful and disrespectful to be rude to your opponents. Within reason, you can take jabs at each other in speeches as it's a debate category, but unnecessarily eye rolling, personal comments, and general meanness will reflect badly on your speaker points. You shouldn't feel the need to be disrespectful to be the winning team, that should come purely from your arguments.