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. Avoid answering with “I’m sure you can tell me.”

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.

For the love of all things good, stop yelling out “motion.” It’s always out of order. If your motion interrupts, then say the motion directly, “point of order.” Otherwise, you must wait to be recognized.

Presiding Officers:

I will always rank a good presiding officer; however you should know the rules (NSDA, tournament specific, and Robert’s). I keep precedence/recency as well, so I will know if you get it wrong.
STOP asking for motions. It’s always out of order. Your job is to move the chamber forward. There is NOT a motion to open the floor for debate, for example.

When I’m judging, I look for a few key things across the board. First and foremost, I want to see good content. Your arguments need to be well-researched, logical, and supported by credible evidence. Whether it's a speech or a debate, the depth of your analysis is important.

I’m looking for confident and clear speech, with appropriate tone, volume, and pacing. Body language, eye contact, and gestures can really enhance your presentation, and how you handle cross-examinations or questions is something I take into account.

Your argument should have a clear structure and flow smoothly from one point to the next. I expect to see good transitions so that I can follow along easily. Make sure you're using your time wisely and staying within the limits.

When it comes to actual argumentation, I expect strong rebuttals and clear engagement with your opponent’s arguments. Clash is essential, especially for the negation side—show me that you’re directly addressing the points being made and refuting them strategically.

I expect a level of respect throughout. Maintain a respectful tone, listen carefully, and engage in a way that fosters good vibes in the room. Constructive, respectful dialogue goes a long way.

Maintain a solid pace throughout. Be aware of how fast you are speaking and do not spread!!! If you speak too fast, I can’t flow and follow your argument. This will hurt how I weigh the round.

1. Be Professional ALWAYS
2. NO SPREADING UNLESS YOU SHARE YOUR CASE WITH ME. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing the debate. This means if I can't understand you, there will be points automatically flowing to the other side. Unless you share your case with me, you should be speaking at a conversational or slightly quicker rate.
3. I do not flow in the speech doc.
4. Clash is key!!! Go line-by-line and pick apart every bit of your opponents case while you build your own case back up.
5. Good debaters are good communicators and good speakers. Make sure you look up at me. You shouldn't have to read your case word for word the entire time.

PF- The word PUBLIC is in the title of this event for a reason. If you are trying to run prog PF, I will stop flowing your speech.

Congress- Do not rehash ideas other representatives have already brought up. Unique points are key here.

I usually judge congress and often serve as a parliamentarian, so that will be the focus of my commentary here.

Firstly, I pay attention to everything that transpires in the chamber. Not much is going to be lost on me, so even the faces made while others are speaking or questioning are taken into account in my evaluation. I judge the whole round.

Above all else, I privilege order and decorum in the chamber. Competitors who act rudely or are disrespectful to the body will be marked down severely. Please be on your best behavior.

I tend to account for procedure rather heavily and am an absolute stickler for following the rules of order to the letter. I will reward competitors handsomely for a well-timed and thoughtful motion but could mark a competitor down for a careless or counterproductive motion. If you are using parliamentary procedure in a chamber I judge, please make sure that the motions you are making are in the best interest of the body as a whole and not simply serving your own interests. If I am the parliamentarian, and if you have a question about the rules or procedure, feel free to raise a point of inquiry or ask me before or after a round or during recess, and I will be more than happy to explain whatever requires clarification. Competition is a learning opportunity for competitors and a teaching opportunity for me, and I treat it as such.

When it comes to speeches, I really cannot stand either one-sided or repetitive debate. Believe me when I tell you that this statement holds true for pretty much every other congress judge. Move the debate forward. There is a difference between a crystallization speech and repetitive debate: repetitive debate merely rehashes the arguments made by others and adds a small bit of commentary; a true crystal speech effectively synthesizes the debate and provides meaningful commentary on the merits (or lack thereof) of the legislation and effectively argues why the bill should be passed or failed. If you are giving the eighth affirmative, I seriously doubt there is a fresh argument being made. Maybe there is a fresh argument there, but it's not likely.

For early cycle speeches I like to see very thorough, well-tagged research from reputable sources. In addition to coaching debate, I teach AP Seminar and AP Research, so I very much know what is a solid source and what is biased or cherry picked; therefore, please do not provide an argument backed by shoddy research because I absolutely will know it. That said, I will reward competitors who give those early speeches if the research is sound and the delivery is polished and well-rehearsed. It takes a ton of work to be truly prepared to give a sponsorship or first negation, and I understand that, so I evaluate those speeches accordingly.

In terms of delivery, I want the speeches to be as extemporaneous as possible. Non-verbal cues like eye contact, hand gestures, and use of physical space in the well are all things I tend to reward. I do understand that you have to consult your notes for quotations and statistics and things of that ilk, but try not to be overly reliant on notes. Verbal delivery is important, clearly. I do not like overly fast delivery for Congress; save that for CX or LD where it is helpful. I also do not like when competitors go way too slow. Think Goldilocks here: not too fast and not too slow, you want it to be just right. Also, the rooms used for Congress tend to be rather large, so please project your voice.

Finally, regarding questioning periods, I see this as time to question the speaker, hence the title: questioning blocks. I frown upon asking overly prefaced questions that amount to no more than speechifying, so please avoid that. If you ask a question, then let them answer it. If you have a "gotcha" question, then ask that question; if you have truly got them, they will struggle with answering it. Interrupting the speaker is not display of greater content mastery for you if they are actually answering the question; rather, it's being rude to a person from whom you sought information. Also, I tend to see questions as more of an extension of the speech, so if you are being questioned (especially early speeches), you ought to be prepared to redirect the questioner to points made in the speech, research you have conducted that addresses the question, a logical argument that answers the matter on the floor, or simply admit that you do not have the data necessary to adequately answer the question. I see the questioning periods as less of a "clash time" and as more of a "clarification time."

If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, please ask me a specific question before or after a round. I'm an open book and am more than happy to share.