I am an assistant coach at Saline High School. I coach congressional debate. I was also the speech coach for years before that. I have experience in judging PF, congress and speech events.

Here is what I am looking for in congress debate:

- A nice introduction to open your speech.

- Well thought out arguments that pertain to the clash of the round.

- Credible evidence stating the site and date.

- Vocal variation to express your passion on the topic.

- Clarity and clear links and transitions.

- Any speech after the first affirmation needs to reference past senators in the round.

- Please do not use favorable questions. I want to hear valid questions that further the debate in the round.

- Please do not interrupt other senators during questioning, give them time to answer/ask.

- No rehashing of previous points, I want to hear your own unique points.

Here is what I am looking for in PF debate:

- I expect everyone in the round to be respectful and professional.

- Don’t talk too fast or too loud and definitely don’t talk over each other in crossfire.

- I want both teams to weigh their impacts.

- I also would like to hear clash between points from both cases in rebuttals and following speeches.

- And finally don’t wait until summary to cite sources, this should be done in constructive and in rebuttal speeches.

Good luck and do your best!

My name is Michael Buck and I am a Congressional and Lincoln-Douglas debate coach from Indiana. I have been a debate coach since 2015. I also have experience coaching public address speech events.

I am a traditional judge. I do not like spreading. Persuade me on the merits of your case and the classic elements of Congress and LD

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.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

I competed in Congressional Debate in Illinois and on the National Circuit between 2011 and 2015. Since then, I have had the pleasure of judging, primarily for Congress and PF.

In Congress, I want to hear solid arguments AND witness flawless speaking styles. Avoid filler words, repeating the same phrase, etc. My biggest pet peeve is rehash/redundant arguments. If you are speaking after the 4th speech, I should hear new arguments AND clash. If you are crystallizing, I want more than a summary. Tell me exactly why your side wins and turn every untouched argument effectively. Please be professional and cordial. If you are a great speaker but don't respect others in the chamber, I am not going to rank you as high. It is very possible to be a good debater and concurrently lead the chamber in a respectful manner, so show me both. Use your question time effectively!

I am new to judging LD, but I am doing all the research that I can to make sure that I understand all of the intricacies of LD. In order for me to understand your arguments, please slow down and avoid LD-specific jargon.:)

Hi!I am a fourth-year physics major concentrating in plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I competed in parliamentary debate on the NPDA circuit, and did congressional debate for three years at Hampshire High School in Hampshire, IL in ICDA, NSDA, and IHSA tournaments. At the University of Illinois, I am the president of the Illini Forensics speech and debate team, and help coach parli and LD.

In terms of personal politics, I won’t let them influence my voting decisions or speaker scores that I give out. I’ll definitely push back against any dumb ideas in my ballots, but I’ll definitely try my hardest to not let that reflect in speaker scores or my RFD (of course no judge is perfect at this and they’re lying if they say they are). Only exception is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, any kind of -ist or -ic arguments will cause me to dock speaker points and will be a voting issue, but it should be addressed by the other team in their speeches if it comes up regardless.

Congress

1. Clash - This is a form of debate and I expect to hear a battle of ideas. This also indicates that you are listening.

2. No spreading - Congress is as much about clearly communicating ideas as it is about content.

3. Research - State your sources; I will judge based on research quality, both the source and date of the research cited are important. Along with this, youneed analysis on your research. Stating quotes or stats without any reason for why I should care will get you docked speaker points and speech score.

4. Content - Make sure when you give a speech that you are bringing in new arguments, if you get up and only restate other debaters' arguments you are missing the point of debate. As debate evolves, make sure you evolve with it. If the focus of the debate starts to center around one pivotal thing, make sure you bring that up. If you make a claim without a link or quote evidence without any analysis, I generally take that as if the evidence was not brought up at all. Link both to the bill and to other speakers' arguments.

5. Questioning - This is not a time to give a speech or preempt your speech. Point out flaws in logic, or clarify certain terms, but don't just ask them to restate their contentions.

Parliamentary:
1. No/minimal spreading. Without cards and without shared documents, it's incredibly hard to hear clearly. Online debate exacerbates this issue, as mic quality is terrible. I won't necessarily vote on spreading, but if you're speaking fast enough to where I can't understand you, I won't be able to completely flow your argument, so you'll appear to have dropped arguments on my flow.

2. Kritiks must be absolutely rock solid and grounded in reality for me to vote on them. I generally despise Ks, especially in parli, because they are almost always prepared ahead of time and just minorly adapted for the individual topic. If you do decide to run a K, make it understandable and realistic, don't start quoting obscure theory that is beyond a reasonable level of familiarity. THAT BEING SAID I try my best to vote on the flow, so if you run an annoying K but the other team doesn't respond properly, I'll have to vote for it but I won't be happy.

3. I will only vote on theory if there is proven abuse that is not sufficiently responded to by the other team. Big fan of RVIs, run them if the other team runs frivolous T.

4. I am much more concerned about the quality of arguments than I am about the technicality of your arguments. Better arguments = better communication.

5. Signpost please! Be clear when moving onto different advantages, disadvantages, counter plans, etc., and give a roadmap of your speech before you give it, you can do this off time if you like.

6. Have fun, don't get angry at each other. We all do debate for fun, no need to make it overly competitive.

Policy and LD

1. I’m fine with speed (to an extent). In policy you have cards and the arguments are usually predictable enough to follow along. The only time I dock speaker points for spreading is if I think your case or your own personal speaking style would be helped by slowing down. If you’re spreading so fast that I can’t understand your arguments, that’ll reflect on the flow not because I don’t like spreading but because I can’t flow arguments that aren’t clear.

2. Kritiks must be absolutely rock solid and grounded in reality for me to vote on them. Don’t run a K because you want to shoehorn your grand political ideology into every single debate you have. If you don’t prove that voting for the K has real world impacts and that it’s not just trying to fiat mindset, 99 times out of 100 it’s just cringe. Ground your Ks in a very tangible voting issue that I can feel good voting about. If you run it, also be aware that I will DEFINITELY vote for a T that attacks a stupid K for making the debate non-educational. THAT BEING SAID I try my best to vote on the flow, so if you run an annoying K but the other team doesn't respond properly, I'll have to vote for it but I won't be happy.

3. I will only vote on theory if there is proven abuse that is not sufficiently responded to by the other team. Running theory/topicality and the other team responding badly does not automatically mean you won the debate on theory/topicality if you haven’t proven that you’ve lost ground or the educational value of the debate. I love RVIs on pointless T.

4. Signpost, please. I am not a policy judge first and foremost, I’ve only ever competed in Congress, Parli, and a little IPDA, so please tell me where you are in your arguments because with spreading (which again is fine) and the different format, it’s very easy to get lost.

5. Probably the most important one for me, clarify any policy/LD specific jargon. Again, I’m not typically a policy judge so if you come at me with acronyms that I don’t know, probably not gonna help your case!

6. Cross-ex- I flow it, but please make sure to apply what you asked in cross-ex in your speeches. Respond to it in your speeches as if I didn’t flow it. Don’t just ask questions for the sake of asking questions, make them all intentional.

7. Have fun! If you take debate so seriously to the point where you actually get mad or tilted at an argument, that’s probably more on you than it is on the other team. We all do debate for fun.

If you have any questions for me before/after a round or want clarification on feedback, feel free to reach out to me at stevenf3@illinois.edu, I’ll keep an eye on my email before rounds during prep for parli if you have any questions during prep and try to respond during prep.

Policy Debate

I am not interested in spreading! I can hang with some speed, but will GREATLY value impact crystallization and a touch of rhetorical flare.

I have NSDA VCX judging experience, am a veteran coach/director, with over 15 years experience and Congress was my primary debate event.

Would prefer not to have to judge the "K" but am down for whatever you decide...If I hear racism, discrimination, sexism, or even tacit xenophobic arguments of any sort I'll drop you immediately and take appropriate follow up steps.

Congressional Debate

I competed in the NSDA during the 1999-2001 seasons and Congressional Debate was my primary national event. I value an actual "debate" of the legislation at hand, enthusiastic competitors who carry the debate forward in every facet of the round, and adept usage of parliamentary procedure. I ABSOLUTELY view Congress as a debate event and will base my acceptance of evidence predicated on appropriate citation provision. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross examination sessions.

My email:

jgarrett@nhusd.k12.ca.us

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and not making the round a terrible place to be, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it. Creativity and experimental arguments are awesome. Please run them.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

Fairness - Theory arguments about fairness in LD are, by and large, arguments debaters fall back on when they don't know their opponent's literature well enough to engage with it. Running fairness while spreading or engaging in other behaviors that exclude people from debate is unlikely to get my ballot.

K's - I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. It fits very well with the intent of LD and forces debaters to examine assumptions. Logic must be sound and you should make a concerted effort to use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with arguments that draw lines between peoples). I have a pretty high threshold for what is topical so be prepared to engage with your opponent's lit. I don't enjoy rounds that devolve to T.

Phil - Critical arguments are based on differing philosophical views of the world. The phil authors we roll our eyes at today were often the radicals of their times. I find the debate community's distinction between Phil & K debate silly to the point of absurd and based on an incredibly reductive idea of who counts as a philosopher.

Performance - Go ahead, just make sure you have clear link stories.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points a few tenths. Enunciation is also a bonus.

I studied linguistics. If you are going to talk about plurals and indefinite articles, please have read more of the article than just the card you are citing.

CX is important and clarifies for me how well you understand your own arguments. I will dock points for badgering novices. Kindness is never the wrong move.

**Virtual debate notes: WiFi strength is not universal. Audio lags make it CRUCIAL that you speak clearly and don't talk over each other.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. Language has a natural rhythm. Using that to assist you will make you easier to understand than cutting all the linking words out of your cards.

**Virtual debate notes: if I can't follow your speed on a video chat, getting those extra two cards in doesn't matter. Strategy has to adapt to the medium.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

Be a kind competitor.

I don't believe low point wins or speaker points are enough to deter truly rude and disrespectful behavior. As such, I reserve the right to only flow and evaluate arguments that are made and extended while maintaining the tone of a friendly academic discussion. Passion is encouraged, but ad hominem attacks, eye rolls, derision, and various "isms" are all very much discouraged. If I'm not happy with the tone of the debate, it will likely be pretty clear that I've stopped flowing you. At the end of the round I will then evaluate all arguments made and extended respectfully and I will consider all other arguments dropped. This is a policy that has impacted my judging in rounds before.

Other than that, I think I'm a fairly standard judge. Anything you want me to understand in your round, state explicitly. Do not imply links or impacts and expect me to infer them. Please fully explain your warrants and all hows and whys if you expect me to buy an argument. Please do not leave me to my own devices with weighing impacts. Tell me why you believe you won the debate.

In LD: Your framework is meant to be the standard by which we evaluate the resolution. As such, I believe it's vitally important. Please don't leave framework off in it's own world at the top of the flow. It should be clearly linked to each of your contentions and you should be impacting through your framework. Please make those links and impacts explicit. Don't leave me to infer them. You can win the debate without winning framework, provided that you successfully prove you better uphold your opponents' framework. I enjoy hearing the philosophy so I love when students take interesting case positions that fully incorporate neat frameworks. I'm okay with a quick-ish speed assuming you are articulating things in a clear way, but I'm not a fan of spreading for spreading's sake. It's worth saying the best debaters I've seen have never been the fastest. Fast often leads to inefficient and imprecise use of language and causes me to think more to process what you've said. In general, the more processing I have to do on my own, the worse for you.

In PF: Please clash. PF can be hard to judge because often the clash is underdeveloped. Please meaningfully engage with your opponents' arguments and then weigh your impacts against theirs. If your opponent provides a framework, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and acceded to, just like any other part of debate; if you drop it, you concede it. It's worth repeating, please weigh your impacts against your opponents'. I strongly dislike spreading in PF and would prefer you don't use jargon. They are not appropriate for the format.

Congress: I expect congressional debate to be reactive to what has already happened in the chamber. Except for 1st pro, I expect that all speeches contain at least one refutation at an absolute minimum. A real refutation needs to interact with what was actually said. MadLibs style refutations where you name drop another debater in a way that was clearly just a fill in the blank without engaging with or responding to them is not going to get you a good score. Extensions are encouraged, but making the same point as if it's the first time it's come up in the chamber will not get you a good score.

Please also explain all the mechanics of how and why in your speech. Clearly articulated hows, whys, and impacts, along with responsive debate, are the keys to a high score. Also make sure links to the bill are made clear. I care a lot about how clean the internals of your contentions are in their organization. Tell me a story and inspire me. Please move the debate forward and cover new ground. No one enjoys listening to rehash. Clean presentation that inspires, quality questioning, and being a kind competitor are all valued.

Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.

In a virtual setting, I really depend on having a preview or roadmap as part of your speech. Without that, I find the structure of your speech very difficult to follow.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it. Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side.

All forms: Don't be afraid to be passionate or to be yourself. You've worked hard to prepare for the tournament and you deserve to be here. If you've put in the work, you've earned the right to be confident. Be proud of yourself and have some fun :)

I am a volunteer judge from Irvine, California. I have been judging congressional debate for 3 years.

Debaters should speak clearly with normal speed, as a basic requirement. My judging will prioritize evidence and logical argument. During the legislation speech, I will be looking for analytical thinking, with logical arguments supported by evidences. When data is quoted, the source of the data should be provided. During questioning, I will be looking for clash and refutation.

I’m a debate coach that is familiar with Policy and its mechanics but am most likely not as experienced as the other Varsity judges. I’ve judged CX a few times before, observed rounds, and read cases. I was a PF and Congress debater when I was active on the circuit.

I’m fine with medium to high speed, as long as I can reference the case in order to keep up. If you are going so fast that you are near incomprehensible, then it's tough to follow. I will let you know if I need you to slow down a bit.

I’m fine with the use of Kritiks, DA’s, and counterplans, as long as they are used clearly and well-flushed out. If you are going to use a strategy like this, make your argument specific and detailed. There’s a reason we have terminology like inherency, solvency, topicality, etc -please use these. Never assume that a judge is making the connection you want them to if you have not spelled it out. In rebuttals and CX, be clear about the cards, contentions, and points you are responding to.

I would really like you to weigh your impacts and make the links clear. Show me why you win and why the planet is better or worse in your case’s world.

Overall, I like arguments and responses that are organized and clear- it leads to better debates and better decisions. Structure is key- this means that I’m a fan of things like offtime roadmaps that lead to good organization.

JUN is pronounced like FUN (she/her)

I enjoy authentic debate. I will rank higher for speakers who genuinely advance the debate by bringing in fresh and nuanced perspectives. 

Debate is meant to be informative and challenging. Avoid intellectual bullying and remember that we are in a space that is an extension of the classroom. 

Sources should be credible, recent, and varied. 

Respect, inclusivity, and kindness go a long way, especially considering the range of experience and exposure that each debater brings to the chamber. 

The chamber is as fun as you make it! If it’s starting to get stale and boring for you, it is for me as well. Speakers and PO are encouraged to set the mood, tone, and pacing of the chamber to one that reflects decorum, vigor, and efficiency. 

Make every effort to learn correct name pronunciations and pronouns for all individuals. 

For Congressional Debate,

most importantly: WEIGH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. You need to spell out for me why your links and impacts matter more than your opponents, and consistently connect every argument you make back to the main debate.

Reminder that each competitor ought to respect the chamber and follow proper parliamentary procedure. Everyone should address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times.

I do take activity into account and although many of our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I value presentation skills in congressional debate.

Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence when possible.

As a parliamentarian, I value presiding officers familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament.

I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak.

I try to give the PO as much control of the chamber as possible. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, or to ensure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying or discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or otherwise

Just a few small things as well

• I always love constitutional arguments and will highly value them in a round.
• I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech!
• Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this be done). Make sure that questioning is pertaining 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 so so important! Don't forget them!
• If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, you have to do cleanup. I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a nearly revolutionary point missed that changes the debate entirely, you shouldn’t be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, exceptions but use your best judgment :).
• Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges. 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.
• My rankings aren’t simply based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This means I’m taking into account speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and everything else that happens as soon as you walk into the chamber.

Hello competitors!!

My name is Francis (Sae-Rom) Kim,

I am a parent and an assistant coach at Redlands High School, have been judging Congress for about 5 years now, and I am very excited to see all the amazing, talented speakers today.

As a judge, I evaluate the "Best Legislator" in the chamber based on a demonstration of various skills, not just speaking. I often use the congressional debate rubric chart. This means I evaluate basic skills as well as participation in setting the agenda, making motions, asking questions, as well as content, argumentation, refutation, flow and delivery. Most importantly, I'm looking for effort, passion, and consistent participation in the round. Just because you gave a good speech doesn't mean you get an automatic good rank. You need to show you are engaged with the chamber.

I will try to be as fair and just as possible, so enjoy the experience and be respectful during the round!!!

Thank you.

I am new to judging. Please have a clear structure and explain your arguments well. I will be focusing mostly on delivery and rhetoric. Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. 

Who I Am: I was a competitor in both Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in high school with greater focus in Congressional Debate during my Junior and Senior year. I continued debate through both Parliamentary Debate and Mock Trial while attending school. I've attended and coached at numerous debate camps through my tenure as well as coach for my previous high school's debate program after graduating from college.

What's Important:

- Respect: Be kind to one another and treat each other with respect. At the end of the day, every competitor, judge, and tournament staff are working the best they can to make tournaments happen so students have the ability to compete. While being nice doesn't make you a better debater necessarily, being rude or mean certainly will not help your case at all.

- In Congress, there's a performance element and an argumentation element to each speech. Do not speak quickly and make sure to enunciate so you are clearly heard. Make sure that your tone doesn't change for your flow but that your tone changes for emphasis. I may be old fashioned, but if you're reading a script even though we're online, I'm not going to be impressed and you will not score well. Keep reading to a minimum for things like important numbers in data or comprehensive refutations.

- Regarding argumentation, at each contention's core there needs to be a clear warrant and impact. Avoid making assumptions of what we should/shouldn't know by being explicit with your logical steps to connect each cause and effect. Impacts should be the consequences that are reasons we should pass/fail a bill. Regardless of being the first or last speaker, at very high levels of debate I expect there to be clash so make sure your refutations are clear. Explain another speaker's warrant/impact and then break it down/outweigh.

- Most importantly, make sure to have fun with the activity. Yes, it is a competition - however, there's also a big community of people who love the activity enough to spend years doing it so make some friends and have fun! Bring in positive energy into each round and you'll naturally be likable.

I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated. 

For congressional debate judging, I would pay attention to the contents, the logics of evidence and how it supports the argument. In later rounds of delivery, I am emphasized on rebuttal to previous representatives, which is critical as we are in a congress debate. Most importantly, please enjoy your debate!

About Me

In the 2000s, I was a TOC-qualified Congressional debater from Arkansas and fiddled around with policy but am not good enough to judge varsity in that event. During college, I started an undergraduate Congressional Debate and Model Congress circuit (which is now defunct). Today, I am a Chicago-based real estate finance and investment management executive. Feel free to look me up on social media / LinkedIn. I'll always explain my paradigm verbally in the round(s) but here are a few highlights:

Congressional Debate Paradigm

~ For authorship / affirmation speeches, I look for a well laid out, outlined summary of the key points of legislation and why the legislation needs to be passed on this particular issue. The best speeches will reference lines of legislation and explain what the legislation does / enforces / regulates rather than why to vote in your favor. For example, if you want to legalize unicorn hunting, you will not only explain why the unicorn population is plentiful to sustain with legalized hunting, but also what the legislation does in its text to regulate effectively such as the number of horns one can bag, color of rainbows allowed, etc.

~ Likewise, for negation speeches, I look for refutation and an outline of not only why the topic should not be regulated in the way the bill specifies, but also why the bill itself should not pass. Is it a poor enforcement mechanism, too broad, or overbearing? What specific line(s) say this and why are these lines bad? Talking about the topic broadly in an eloquent way will get your points, but specificity to the bill itself will give you a better rank.

~Specific references to text in the legislation will get you a higher score and rank if the rest of your speech is solid. Remember - the specific bill is being debated, not the topic itself. Some bills are too broad and others go too far. You can agree with the premise of the bill itself but not the way it is written.

~ CD is a form of debate. That means that there must be refutation, argumentation, and summation of the points which move fellow legislators to vote on your side. Do not rehash the same points or introduce new points further along in debate (after the 3rd speech on your side). This is repetitive and doesn't move the argument along. Instead, focus on clashing with the opposite side and reaffirming / summarizing the strongest points on your side. There is no need for a 2-3 point speech after the 4th speech on the aff / neg side. Summarize!

~Outlining / roadmapping your speech in the first 10-20 seconds is critical for me and your peers to follow along the speech. A clear transition between points is appreciated.

~ Timing of your points needs to be even. Too many CD competitors spend the first two minutes on their first point and scramble to finish. Do not be finishing up your 2nd point at 2:40 and rush through the third point, then go over 3:05. Conclusions are just as important as introductions. If you go over 3:10, your speech score and rank will be degraded.

~ Persuasion is key. You must compel your supporters in the room (and the constituents you are hypothetically representing) to be more firm in their beliefs and your opponents to waver to your side. You don't need a punny attention grabber, but I appreciate clever rhetoric and a well articulated speaker who doesn't go overbearing in "debate voice." The best US senators and representatives don't use a different tone when speaking at the lectern being nationally broadcast on C-SPAN versus having a 1:1 conversation with their voters.

~ Evidence is appreciated but I'm not a stickler for specific explanations, dates, and authors (e.g. you do not have to say "According to Ryan Reynolds of The Brookings Institute, a think tank on international affairs, dated January 1, XXXX"; just say "The Brookings Institute published a study earlier this year..."). Don't introduce new evidence to support the same point that's been reiterated in a past speech if it's beyond the 3rd speech on one side. Strong bonus points if you can point out inconsistencies or flaws in previous competitors' evidence.

~ For presiding officers, I look for efficiency, consistency, and control of the room. Keeping order is essential, but having a more effective way of moving along debate, Q&A, and voting will give you higher ranks. If you've done something innovative to make precedence, keeping time, or Q&A more effective, I will rank you among the best speakers in the room. I have ranked POs first and will continue to do so if they are truly outstanding.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

rjmccoy@bluevalleyk12.org

Introduction

I'm an assistant coach for debate and forensics at Blue Valley North. As a theater and English teacher of nearly 20 years, interp. events are probably my strongest area. I know enough to help out some novice and open policy teams with their rounds or cases they work on with their head coach and summer camps, however, you should probably see me more as a community judge with some background in the event rather than someone that pays close attention. I'm more of a sponsor than a coach most weekends that just makes sure students get to their rooms. As of September 2023, I have yet to judge a practice round and have had no contact with the topic research. That said, here's what may be helpful for you.

Congress

I've scored a few rounds in Kansas invitationals over the years. Probably 5-10 rounds. I've used Congress as a model for various classroom activities and projects in my English and Speech classes and worked with students here and there on some speeches. I enjoy an efficient and respectful chamber with obvious connections and clash between speeches to show active listening. Yes, speeches will be prepared with credible evidence and relevant sourcing, but there should be clear sections responding to the debate in the room. Strong POs will be considered in ranking. As a theater director for 10 years, I'm used to watching the entire stage. You are always "on" in a session. A congressperson who is listening, engaging, efficient, and respectful will be rewarded over one who is simply domineering.

Policy and other background...

1. I'm a theater and English teacher first. What this means for you in the debate, is that the communicative issues and telling the story are still important. I'm not going to try to listen or flow speed. If you are still going to go there, read the evidence fast but definitely pull out the warrants and clearly repeat what you want me to pay attention to and how it works in this round. Honestly, I'm tired of people reading a powertag with a whole bunch of stuff they don't really understand or not linking it to the round we're in. TLDR: Don't just read at me.

2. I'd like to think that I'd listen to just about anything in the room and be willing to vote on it. Since I primarily judge novice, JV, and Open rounds, I probably lean policy maker. I haven't had a lot of Ks to consider or vote on so I'm not sure how I feel about them philosophically. I'm not a games player that will vote a team down for missing one minor arg. on T in the 1AR. I don't like ridiculous spreading args. from the neg. that then kicks everything that doesn't stick. I'd rather have a couple speeches debating the merits of an argument and find some depth than shell out ten things that don't matter.

3. Be sure to link your arguments to the round and explain to me why I should be voting a certain way. I'm not going to be reading every sentence of your evidence and make the arguments for you. I'll listen, and you will bring out what I need to hear.

4. If you open the abuse story in the round, you better not be doing it elsewhere. I think new in the 2 is typically slimy if off case, but I'm primarily talking anything running a ton of T you plan to kick in the 2NR, turning CX into a speech, stalling finding a timer and prep time, fiddling with the file share, et al. If you waste time on an abuse story when you could have used that time to debate this issue, or your opponent points out you were just as or more abusive in the round, I'll vote you down for wasting our time discussing it. Debate the topic.

I know this isn's succinct and what advanced debaters are going to want to hear or debate to, but I hope this helps. Let me know if you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them. However, if you aren't going to adapt to my preferences, don't bother asking and just do your thing.

LD - I've judged these rounds here and there and at the national tournament, but it has been awhile. I do have a handful of rounds in this year. Be sure to take care of the value and VC debate as that is the framework that lets me know how to vote in the round. Evidence to show how real world examples have worked are great, but don't forget the values work. This is why I like this style of debate. We aren't focused primarily on the policy but the ideas and values. If you keep that in mind and can explain it for a theater/English teacher that prefers a communicative style, you'll have a better chance at the ballot.

PFD - Well, this is something I haven't seen a lot of, so I'd encourage you to look at the other comments regarding LD and Policy and cross apply to this event. Haven't coached it. Only seen a few rounds of it.

WSD: Proper structure and traditional format should be used in WSD. The best cases lay out the framework in a way that there is a clear bright line or some set weighing mechanism for me to evaluate the round.  Arguments and layers of analysis should encompass both pragmatic and principled level engagement but my ultimate weight for argument content points is going to be on the reasonableness of the argument - essentially the believability that your position will and can work. While evidence per se is not essential I do feel that examples are important, especially where the other side is able to offer some in support of their stance. When offered, examples should encompass as much of a world view as possible limiting to US or other specific regions without that limitation being placed by the motion itself is abusive and goes against what WSD is about.  I think that the Opposition should attempt to get as many POI's as they can, without being abusive but on the flip side, the Proposition should not take more than 2 POI's per speaker. Speed will impact style points if I begin to feel like I'm in a PF round.  All members should be active and not just one when it comes to POI's. 

Public Speaking Events: Structure and presentation is important. It should feel like a conversation but not like I'm talking to a friend either so no informal language or tones. I'm also not opposed to unconventional structure so long as your present the information in a structured way...if that makes sense.

Oratory/Informative: I am not opposed to performance pieces when they are natural. If the "interp" feels forced, fake, or mechanical, it throw the speech off for me. Performance pieces should be for a purpose and a gimmick.

Interp Events: Blocking and conviction is key. Just because you have movement does not mean you have blocking. For example walking/running around the room is not blocking unless the script scene really calls for that. Blocking and transitions between character should be clean and clear. Literary merit is just as important as performance and when it comes down to breaking a tie between two amazing performances, I will go with the selection that has the most literary merit.

POI: Binder usage is fine but should be with purpose. Using it as prop for the sole purpose of having a prop is not okay. While I understand that most people memorize their performance this is not supposed to be performed that way. If you are going to memorize your performance do so with a sufficient number of page turns and block in reading from or at least look for a moment at your binder. If you never appear to read from it I will drop your ranking because you have given me a DI/HI. Additionally I am not a fan dropping images or words from your binder from visual effect. The only time I think this is okay is if it is a direct photo copy of the images in the original script or the only words you have spoken while on that page. Outside of this you are using the drops as a prop which is not allowed.

andrea.peterson-longmore@neenah.k12.wi.us thats my email before you ask.

I have sections below specific to each category, so just scroll and look for the bolded section you are interested in.

Experience: I am currently the head coach for Neenah high school Speech & Debate (but currently only assisting in LD/PF... if that makes sense? I do all the other things) and have been a coach for the last 6 years. I have students who compete locally as well as nationally- we had the national champion at NSDA in Congress, and a Quarterfinalist in LD, a national competitor in Speech, middle school nats nationa runner up....so I have judged all over the place. This is my ninth year as a judge ('22-'23). I judge all categories, except varsity policy. I was not a debater in school, so I have a more basic understanding of the more obscure things that go on in debate.

"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"

Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.

I wasn't a debater- explain things clearly or I drop arguments I don't understand. ***note on that- I understand the terms of debate (link, turn, impact, etc), just not more niche philosophies and less popular arguments***

Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me

Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best strat with me

Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time.

I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.

Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.

Okay, I love these little things I have seen on other paradigms, so hopefully this helps.

For your pref sheets: (1 being top pref, just to be clear)

K's 1<-------------------------------X------>5 (I like them, but I feel like I am not a good judge for them)

Policy – 1<----X--------------------------------->5 /strike

Phil – 1<-------------------X------------------>5

T/Theory- 1<-------------------------------X------>5

Tricks – 1<-------------------------------------X>5 Actually... X. <== I HATE them. Please don't run them.

Trad – 1<--X----------------------------------->5

See below for more in-depth explanations divided by category

Congress

Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.

Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really a "bonus," but I remember them when I am doing my rankings- which helps your placement)

PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, but a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.

Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.

Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session.

Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.

Public Forum

Preferences: Please be clear and professional in round. I hate that the attitudes and behaviors seen in other styles is seeping into PF. As noted in other sections, I was not a debater, so don't expect me to know every single term you share. Generally, if I make a somewhat confused face, define your term.

A few things I love to see: Please, collapse arguments. It's so awesome to watch a veteran team (or even a novice team) weigh arguments and determine the largest impacts and points in the round and weigh them against each other, rather than slowly increase their speed in through the debate to try and get every single argument in to the last speech. Spreading has no place in PF- stop trying to make it happen, its not going to happen.

A few things I hate in rounds: Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. If you want cards, fine... but ask for them all at once and get it over with quickly. It is super annoying to go through CX and then have a 15 minute "card trade" before getting back into debate.

Lincoln Douglas

Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I will flow everything and I will say clear if necessary, but only once before I stop flowing you. I was not a debater, so my knowledge of really weird arguments is lacking. Let me say that again. I WAS NOT A DEBATER- EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments. In terms of speed I judge a lot of policy, so I would say I am comfortable with most speeds seen in LD.

A few things I love to see in round: Please weigh & tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be. Signpost clearly- I love hearing you tell me exactly what the "uniqueness" is, the "link" and the "impact. It makes it much easier for me to organize my flow. If you have nearly identical frames, I love to see kids recognize that and show how they can fit into each other's frame, rather than making the round about whether I should weigh using "limiting suffering" or "increasing societal welfare." Let's be honest, those are pretty similar, and if you fit in one you probably can fit in the other.

A few things I hate in rounds: Swearing- This seems like an obvious one, but is lacks professionalism if it is not needed to actually make the points. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. Last thing: if you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.

Policy

Preferences: I do not like any tricks or unprofessional behavior in round, but snark is always okay. I prefer not to hear teams talking to each other while their opponents are presenting, as it is distracting to me as a judge. Open speeches are a no-go. If you don't have your own stuff ready, then take prep time. If you're out of prep time, organize yourself better next time. I generally only judge novice policy once in a while, so be aware you might be my only round this year, and I probably don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area.

I am fine with spreading, (probably a 6/10 for speed) however if you are not understandable, I will only tell you clear once before I stop flowing you. Please be aware of your own speaking issues- for example, if you have braces and rubber bands, you probably should not spread, since you will be almost unintelligible. On the topic of spreading- I understand it is a strategy to get as many arguments in as possible, but be aware that a large breadth of arguments you do not understand is basically useless.

Impact calc is huge for me. If I don't clearly hear you explain why your impacts are bigger or more important, I judge completely by what is on my flow. DA's and CP's are fine in a round, and good experience for a novice/Post nov. I always flow cross x, and keep track of questions asked. I do not want to see a framework in novice policy.

Misc. Stuff for any style debate:

-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28 for speaks.

-I don't flow things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.

-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.

-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.

TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.

Rice University Classic/NPDA Paradigm 9/22:

I'm Bryce - I debated for and ran the University of Minnesota Parliamentary Debate Team when I was in college and graduated in 2020. I am now the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. My full time job is speech and debate, but at the high school level, not the college level. My HS team competes in all of the events, but our largest squads are doing national circuit HS Public Forum and Congressional Debate. We mostly do UIL (local TX) CX, rather than national circuit HS Policy. I judged a couple of NPDA rounds at Rice last year and hadn't judged before that since McKendree 2020/NPDA 2021. I'm back to cover McKendree's judge obligation at Rice and I'm helping them in the prep room for the tournament.

As many judges do, I will do my best to evaluate whatever round the debaters in the room want to have. I will not be upset at, or outright reject, nearly any non-"ist" thing you do in a round. So, if you would prefer to have a round that goes against the below listed preferences, I'm going to appreciate and respect you all the same: I just might view the round differently than you do, and I think that's okay if you're okay with it.

That said, as many judges do, I have preferences for what I like to see and what I think makes for a good round. Here are some of those thoughts:

• Cowardice is a voting issue. Debate to win and be bold.
• When I debated, I primarily read topical affirmatives and went for (very silly) theory/topicality arguments, topical DA/CP strategies, and the Cap K most commonly on the negative.
• I would prefer the affirmative be related to the topic in some way (does not have to be USFG/fiat/etc, but you should be prepared to defend your method) and I probably err negative in an evenly debated T-FW vs non-topical aff round.
• I would prefer that advocacies defend something material and for advocacies to clearly delineate what that material thing is - I am more compelled by "you don't do anything, so vote neg on presumption" than many other judges.
• I would prefer your arguments be as specific as possible - I like excellent warrants and small but deep debates rather than LOs reading 7 off and MGs reading theory.
• I like reading evidence and hearing evidence comparison in HS debate rounds I judge. Examples are evidence in NPDA - for every claim or logical warrant, you ought to have an example to explain how the thing you say is true has been empirically proven or otherwise validated in real life.
• When making decisions, I primarily decide rounds in terms of which impacts each side best solves. Does the plan or the counterplan solve war with Russia? Does the interp or the counter-interp control the best link into limits? Judge instruction, impact calculus, and link comparison goes a long way in close debates.
• I like LO strategies that spend lots of time on case.
• While I think that what you say in a debate round matters and that debate trains some cool skills, I find the technical aspect of the game more interesting and I'm more concerned about you making good strategic decisions to try to win the debate.
• The affirmative may always read a permutation. I have never understood the "no perms in a methods debate" argument despite going for it myself sometimes.
• The status quo is always an option. If I think the CP or K is less desirable than the plan, I will evaluate the status quo/DA versus the plan unless instructed otherwise.
• If a team wins some "we meet" articulation on theory, it's terminal defense and the rest of the sheet of paper almost certainly does not matter. I do not understand the concept of a "risk of a violation."
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense to an interp or offense based on poorly-worded interps.
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense in general. This would mean the round has gone very sideways indeed.

Here are some other NPDA-specific quirks and preferences you may find useful to know:

• I'm fine with you calling points of order and indeed would prefer you do if you think an argument is new. Unless I'm on a panel and another judge would prefer I not rule, I will rule on the point of order.
• I have never seen a good LOC that was more than 3 off and case.
• Unless instructed otherwise, each of the following positions will get their own sheet of paper: plan text/solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, theory interpretations, framework arguments (not impact framing), kritiks minus the alternative, and the alternative itself. I'd prefer you give the order with this in mind - i.e., don't say "the aff," say "plan text, advantage 1, advantage 2"; don't say "the K," say "the alt, then the rest of the K".
• Please read all plan texts, interpretations, etc. slowly and twice, and provide a written copy for both opponents and myself. I will use the written text of the plan/CP/interp to decide arguments based on what the plan/CP/interp is, not what was said. If I think there is a discrepancy between what I have flowed and what has been written down, I will verbally clarify before starting flex/the next speech.
• The lack of a backside rebuttal in NPDA = the MO should probably not be making new arguments. New MO arguments = new PMR golden answers, including golden turns, offense, theory.
• I will almost certainly flow the LOR on a new sheet of paper. I will flow the PMR on each sheet of the debate, next to the arguments the MO made. The LOR's framing claims will inform and break ties between the MO and the PMR.

I have my full high school paradigm below, should you care to read more. Ask me other questions before the debate and I am happy to answer them, provided they were not answered above.

---

Overhauled on 7/19/2023 for PFBC and the 2023-24 competitive season

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

Here's my experience. This largely does not matter, but it might help you get a sense of how I think about arguments and where I'm coming from before the round:

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp, Minneapolis, MN: September 2021 - Present

Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2021 - Present

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2020 - July 2021

Assistant Debate Coach, The Lakeville Debate Team, Lakeville, MN: September 2016 - August 2020

NPDA/NPTE Parliamentary Debate, University of Minnesota: November 2016 - March 2020

Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate, JMM/Vel Phillips Memorial, Madison, WI: September 2014 - June 2016

Additionally, I serve on the PF Wording Committee for the NSDA. Your feelings on the current PF topic are partially my doing. If you would like to influence me one way or another, please feel free to email me or submit topic suggestions to the NSDA at speechanddebate.org/topics.

General Thoughts

This will be my 10th full year involved with speech and debate. I still absolutely love the activity, and I'm finding new depths to all aspects of speech and debate with each passing year.

Speech and debate is an inherently competitive activity grounded in vital critical thinking skills, including the skills of reading, writing, research, public speaking, logic, argumentation, and persuasion. The best competitors, no matter the event or arguments being made in the round, are excellent at all of these vital critical thinking skills, and more. The further away from being a competitor I get, the more I care about the educational and life-enriching qualities of speech and debate, and the less I care about the pure drive to win a tournament (though that still matters to me a great deal).

I have no strong preferences on the arguments that you make in the round, and I will evaluate any round based primarily on the technical skill exhibited by the competitors in the round. That said, I find it more enjoyable to vote for those competitors whose arguments are clearly excellently researched, written, and considered before the round.

My biggest non-negotiable rule is that you treat the community that you have voluntarily chosen to take part in with respect. Be kind to your opponents, your teammates, your coaches, tournament staff and volunteers, your judges, and (least importantly) me. While I firmly believe that speech and debate is vitally important, it's all an elaborate game at the end of the day, and I think you should treat the other players in the game as kindly as possible. If you intend on making the round unpleasant, either through poorly considered research skills, poorly considered in-round strategy, or poorly considered behavior, do us both a favor and strike me.

You should debate to win, and have fun doing it.

Debate

I don't think there is a big enough difference between debate formats to necessitate different paradigms for PF, LD, and CX. I think good debate is always good debate. Good debate should come from well-considered positions constructed from good evidence and presented in an entertaining, persuasive, and thoughtful manner.

Please create an email chain. Put bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on the email chain, along with the corresponding Seven Lakes Google Group, depending on what format I'm judging: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes + sides of each team. This helps me keep email chains organized, which I frequently go through after tournaments to review arguments and evidence made at tournaments. Please create the email chain as soon as humanly possible, even (especially) if I am not yet at the room or if your flight has not started. Please be ready to debate at the round start time.

Evidence read in a debate should be able to withstand scrutiny well after the round is over. If you have read the above paragraph and are uncomfortable creating an email chain because I am going to "steal your prep" or "prep you out," I would invite you to consider what your ideal evidentiary standards in debate look like and whether the norms of distorting evidence beyond recognition, withholding evidence from opponents (even when that evidence is requested), being unable to produce the original copy or a cut card of evidence upon request, lying to opponents about evidence or source quality, or intentionally misleading opponents as to which evidence was read at a point in the debate truly lead to better debates, or whether they are a tool that you are attempting to use to gain a competitive advantage on questionably ethical grounds. If you feel called out by any of this, I'm a bad judge for you, and you should strike me.

At a minimum, you must follow the NSDA rules regarding evidence citation and its exchange. If you do not do that, I reserve the right to vote against you if I feel the violation is egregious enough, regardless of whether or not your opponents make an argument that you should lose because of your representation of evidence.

I would strongly prefer that evidence is read in the format of a cut card when first presented, and that you send a document containing all of the cards that you have read, in order, either immediately before or immediately after the end of your speech. I do not need anything that is not carded evidence other than plan texts or theory/topicality interpretations. If you refuse to share carded evidence with your opponents for any reason, including being "unable to find the card," I will vote against you -- that is a violation of the NSDA's rules regarding evidence exchange, and an exceptionally shady practice that I wish to punish with my ballot.

All things being equal, I would prefer that you read fewer individual cards and read more warrants from better cards. The trend towards reading a new piece of evidence every 10 seconds is antithetical to my request for well-considered and researched positions.

I will flow the debate carefully. Sometimes, I flow on paper, and sometimes, I flow on my laptop. My preferred rate of delivery is a quick conversation, but I can flow faster debates, and I will not feel bored by slower debates. My issues with rate of delivery typically stem from the fact that as rate increases, clarity often decreases, and I end up missing things. I will make every attempt to keep up with you and flow what I can understand from your speech. I will not read the speech document to fill in warrants or cards that I have missed. If you don't see me writing or typing for an extended period of time, it's because I can't understand you for some reason, and you should slow down or speak more clearly.

I would prefer to vote for arguments that in some way center a discussion of the topic. This is very open to the interpretation of the debaters in the rounds, and I will not dogmatically ignore certain content because "I don't want to hear it." I am frequently entertained and delighted by well-researched critical positions on both the affirmative and negative, huge extinction impacts, soft left high probability impacts, and everything in between. However, the more that your position could be copy-pasted from one month's file to the next, the less likely I will be to enjoy listening to it.

The above paragraph also encompasses my thoughts on theory, particularly in PF and LD. Most theory debates end up being tired and recycled, with debaters deploying these strategies with little regard for their applicability to the debate at hand. I'll vote on it, but I would be more enthused if you would pick a more interesting strategy, and your speaker points will probably suffer. That said, if you're reading theory in a way that contextualizes a specific violation to this particular round or position your opponents are reading, I will be far more interested in what you have to say. I have a soft spot for reasonability claims and creative we meet arguments from teams that may be technically losing theory, but probably have not done anything wrong. In short - if you have a different strategy, I'd probably prefer to hear that.

Topicality is different than theory, because it involves the affirmative's specific advocacy. I'm more than fine to listen to these debates. I'm a sucker for excellent, clever, and context-specific interpretations, and typically decide these debates based on questions of ground quality and quantity for each team.

Regardless of which strategy you choose to employ, you always need a link and an impact to win the debate. This also means that all advocacies, plan texts, etc., should advocate for something to happen and should defend the material consequences of that thing happening. Teams should debate the solvency of the advocacy more.

It will dramatically help you to spend a lot of time in the last couple of speeches explaining why the links and impacts you have chosen are the arguments that will win the debate, rather than just arguments that could win the debate, through evidence comparison, weighing, and impact calculus.

I will time the debate, generally on an analog timer that will beep when your time is up. I will flow everything that you say up until the timer beeps. You are free to keep talking after the timer goes off, but it will not go on my flow. If you keep talking for a ridiculously long time after the timer goes off, I will probably cut you off and act annoyed. I will also time cross-x and prep time. Please clearly tell me when you are starting and stopping prep time. Timer shenanigans will result in decreased speaker points.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing the round's result (UIL, NSDA Nationals, etc.), I will disclose my decision and what set of arguments led me to that decision at the conclusion of the round, in as much detail as I possibly can fit into the time I have to render and deliver a decision. You are always welcome to ask additional questions at any time, as long as you're being reasonable and respectful.

Congress

Most of my thoughts on debate, above, apply here. Congress is best when speakers engage in a deep debate on the couple of issues of clash that are most obviously presented by the legislation that is presently being debated. Think of yourself as "working with" speakers on your side and "against" opposing speakers to advance debate on the item on the floor.

I am more interested in hearing the round progress as a PF, LD, or CX round would. That means the first couple of speeches should set up constructive arguments, the middle couple of speeches should introduce lots of refutation and extension of arguments that came before them, and the later couple of speeches should synthesize the arguments made on the item and paint a compelling picture as to why each side has overall won the debate. If we're getting to the 6th or 7th cycle of debate, you would probably do better to save your precedence for the next item up for debate.

In general, I think Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. I also think Congress would be way better if each chamber was run more similar to a speech tournament - with each round having 10 competitors, 1 or 2 adults serving as the PO and scorers, and each round having a single specified item that everyone gives one speech on. I think this would standardize the role of each speech across each cycle of debate, eliminate the randomness and unfairness of scoring a PO alongside speakers, and ensure all students were scored based on a roughly equal amount of participation in the round.

If you're the PO and I have to score you as a speaker: you'll start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.

Delivery is secondary to content, but can still influence your rank, especially when poor delivery makes it difficult to follow your content.

Please do not yell at or over each other during questioning.

Speech:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.

I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)

I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background. That said, one of my favorite speech events to judge is POI - it's all of the best parts of interp combined with the research and argument synthesis of debate.

If you're in Extemp, follow this checklist: explain why the question is important to ask, answer the question, explain why your answer is the best answer to the question and not just ananswer to the question, and make good arguments. Everything else is secondary.

Relatively speaking, I am a old school Policy judge-Stock Issues, Slower Presentation (if you are gulping for air, especially the double gulp, you are speaking far too fast) and most importantly Topicality (PLEASE debate the Resolution in its entirety, don't pick one of 2 words and head off to left field). CPs are welcome, Ks not so much (always interesting but MUST relate to the topic and ultimately result in a policy/solution. Closed CX please.

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Speech and Debate Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

Email for cards and what you need to send me: emma.sasser9@gmail.com

I never did debate in High school or college.

Do not spread, its hard for me to follow.

I am big on seeing/hearing your passion for the subject, if you disagree with your position in your debate I should not be able to tell. Please make sure that there is clash in your debates.

You are able to time yourself, I will be timing you as well.

I am new judge for Neenah. I am somewhat well versed I Philosophical theories, but not so much in debate. Meaning, I will understand most of the "values" and "value criterions" but I will struggle with the complex arguments in debates. I did not debate in high school, so I don't know all of the different cases. Consider me a lay judge. Speed is somewhat okay, probably like 150-180 words per minute is all I can handle.

Do not run anything progressive in front of me. I will not understand it. This includes K's.

Break the round down to impact calc for me, this is the best way to win a round in front of me.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate?

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will. 

I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)

Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards. 

have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)

I have been coaching & judging for 15+ years, primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I'm a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

I am a parent judge and value speeches with clear, logical flow of ideas supported by evidence, delivered with good inflection, energy, and proper speed.

I look forward to hearing well-researched and constructive arguments during the early round, and speeches that bring new ideas to advance the debate and clash from previous speakers, as the round progresses.

Good synthesis in late round speeches is appreciated but should go beyond rehashing previous statements and be used to present own cohesive arguments.

I do not mind aggressive cross but please be respectful.

For PO, I value those who can demonstrate good knowledge of procedures and manage the chamber in a transparent and efficient manner.

Hey everyone!

I competed on the Speech circuit for a little over six years. I focused largely on Extemp and Informative Speaking, but I dabbled in Impromptu and Congress at the national level. 

For speaking events: I want to see clear structure and articulate speaking. Good humor will get you very far for me!! If your event has a structure, I expect to see it (in extemp especially! I want data, warrants, and impacts for all points!!). Be confident and you will do fine. 

For interp events: I want to understand your message and your characters. I have helped construct parts of POIs, DIs, HIs and DUOs so I know what I am looking for. If it should be funny, it better be funny; if it is dramatic, I need to feel the drama. Your intro, while short in comparison, is very important to me since this sets the stage for the entire performance. If I do not understand your story and message, I will not understand the piece and my ranking will reflect as such. 

Congress: I want to see very clear arguments and unique points. If you speak and it is rehash, please know ahead of time I will drop you. You are not helping the round by having non-unique claims. If you are giving a refutation speech, it better have refutation. If you are giving the authorship/sponsorship, introduce the bill and why it is important. If you do not make me care, then I won't. It's simple!

General note for politically-based events: I am very well versed on politics domestically and globally due to (1) religious reading of the news and (2) I am studying it in college. If you are presenting an argument and I find the evidence to seem fake, I will challenge it or make my point known. If you are lying about something political, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up to confirm, but I will ultimately drop you if it is falsified. Also, I am studying political science and international relations - I know what evidence means and when data is misused. If you are using data use it correctly or I will call you out on it in ballots and ranking.