Debated

4 years of CX at Moore High (OK)

4 years CX at UCO

Qualified to the NDT 3 Times

CEDA Finalist my last year

Basically, all that time has been spent as a 2N/1A going for the K and reading an AFF without a plan. With that said I think that debate is for the debaters, do what you do best and do it well. By all means don't let my (perceived) preferences sway you from doing what you want to do.

If you have any questions before or after the tournament feel free to email me at grantcolquitt87@gmail.com

Also add me to the email chain if there is one.

I flow on paper so I may need slightly more pen time than some, so clarity > speed for me. I can still handle speed, but clear transitions are really important to me, and all the more true in an online setting.

I evaluate debates almost entirely on the flow, so my preferences matter less than doing what you're best at and impacting that on flow. Given that impact framing arguments (impact calculus), are almost always the most important factor of my decisions.

A few thoughts on particular issues:

Framework- most of my ballots on this question come down to the impact of competing models of debate. I think AFFs are often ahead in this debate when they advance a counter interp that solves the limits DA. NEGs tend to be ahead with a TVA that solves the AFFs offense (note not the AFF but their offense). I’m here for the impact turn and procedural fairness respectively (though more as an internal link to education than an independent impact). But that is my light default, I can and have been convinced otherwise.

K v K debates- Most of this works like any other debate, explain why you’re right and what the impact to that is. Only specific comment, I have never understood the notion that “method debates” mean the AFF shouldn’t get a perm, this isn’t intuitive and while I am open to being convinced I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Also, you just need a link to your K anyway so maybe use that to beat the perm?

Policy v policy debates- this is by far the debate I’m the least familiar with but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to it if that’s your jam. Just explain how your impacts turn or outweigh your opponent’s arguments and you should be just fine.

General

» I debated at Lindale High School for 4 years locally, statewide, and nationally. I enjoy the process of debate more than I do listening to any particular argument, so do what you do best. I will try my best to base my decision entirely on the debate, so all preferences below are weak, and you will not be punished in any way if you debate well but don't follow them. I will evaluate tech over truth and can be convinced of anything, but all arguments need to be impacted. The burden is on you, not me, to explain how you winning <x> argument should affect my decision.

» If there's an email chain, please add me (RonakDesai260@gmail.com) to it.

K Affs/Framework

» I read primarily traditional policy affs in my first three years of debate and primarily planless ones for my final year. Explained well, I have no preference what type of aff you choose to read and enjoy both sides of framework/K aff debates.

» Generally, I'll decide these debates by determining how much of the aff offense actually links to the neg's model, the impact to the offense that links, and how much of that offense is resolved by a topical version/switch side/the neg interpretation. I'll compare that residual aff offense to neg offense not solved by the counter-interpretation/internal link or impact turned.

Topicality

» "Tech over truth" matters here for me. I'm not going to wait for the end of the debate, read the plan/we meet cards and the interps, and decide if I think you meet or whose interp is better (i.e. judge intervention). Instead, I will vote based on the analysis given and what I have flowed.

» Reasonability is a question of if the counter interp is reasonable, not if the aff is reasonable. It is most effective if you pair an explanation of why your interp is reasonable with a strong we meet argument. Neg teams' limits offense, though, often is sufficient alone to prove the counter-interp isn't reasonable.

» Generally, I'll decide these debates first by determining between competing interps and reasonability. Reasonability just means neg offense will start off mitigated compared to aff offense. Either way, I'll determine if the the aff violates the neg interp. If yes, I'll compare the standards for each interp based on how they were debated and impacted out (case lists and specific examples are persuasive). The team that better explains/impacts why the world of their interpretation is best will generally win.

Kritiks

» I enjoy them but have a shallow understanding of most K concepts, so explain your argument well and in-depth. I prefer specificity and line-by-line debate, so I'd appreciate if your 2NC was less overview and more line by line (not a requirement though).

» Role of the ballot arguments and "method debate = no perm" arguments are not very persuasive to me (I will evaluate them, but aff teams don't have to say much to convince me not to). I'm a decent judge for K tricks and enjoy them.

» Generally, I'll decide these debates first by looking at the framework debate. If won by the neg, it usually means winning the alternative is easier/the impact to the link is bolstered. I'll then evaluate if a permutation is possible. If not, I'll look at the impact to the link/how much the alternative resolves (unless a framework argument is won that makes this unnecessary) and compare that offense to the aff offense (both from the 1AC and against the K itself).

Counterplans

» I won't judge-kick unless explicitly told to do so, but a small aff answer would be enough to convince me not to do that.

» I can be convinced of anything, but if debated absolutely perfectly, I think I would lean neg on PICs and aff on consult, condition, international fiat, and 50 state fiat counterplans. Aff-specific solvency advocates are very strong can make normally illegitimate counterplans acceptable. If conditionality is perfectly debated, I'll lean aff with 3 or more conditional worlds and neg with less.

» Generally, I'll decide these debates first by determining if the counterplan is theoretically legitimate. Then, I'll decide if a permutation is viable. If not, I'll look at any offense on the counterplan. Then, I'll assess how much of the aff it solves. Finally, I'll weigh the impact to any solvency deficit + reason the counterplan is bad against the net benefit.

Disadvantages

» Justifying new 1AR arguments or cards is easy, but I can be convinced they're illegitimate by the 2NR. Explain why a new argument should be allowed/rejected in particular situations. Zero risk is possible but rare.

» Generally, I'll decide these debates by looking at every level of the disad to assess the risk that it's true. I'll then weigh the risk of the disad against that of the aff. These risks will be magnified with specific turns case arguments and evidence comparison.

Case

» Specific, nuanced case debates are fun to have, fun to judge, and hard to beat. If a 2AC says a lot of words about their tiny, strange aff you don't understand, don't let it deter you from robustly extending case arguments in the block. It is very possible for smart arguments without cards to dismantle an advantage, and engaging the case should be part of nearly every strategy.

Ethics

» I will evaluate and encourage you to insert re-highlighted pieces of the other team's evidence. If you do, though, it must be a different highlighting of the same exact card read initially. It should also be accompanied by an argument that briefly explains what the re-highlighted evidence says.

» If you're reading a card and say "mark it at (word)," you or your partner should mark it somehow and be able to give the other team a document with all the cards marked if they ask. Don't lie about what you read and didn't read. If you made an argument and tell the other team you didn't when they ask, I will also act like you didn't.

» If your opponent or I can accurately identify that you are clipping cards, you will lose.

apparently judgephilosophies is gone so im updating this for the stanford tournament and beyond - i debated at cal and for four years in high school, was pretty decent and all that stuff, do whatever you want as long as you do it well and please explain things

make me laugh while also being persuasive please ur speaker points will jump

if you want some background - I went almost exclusively for afropessimism and read a "performance aff" my senior year of high school, and then started off college by going for FW and deterrence good against most K affs, followed by a jump to "high theory" (i.e. Negarestani, Deleuze) - the point is I've definitely debated both sides of "clash debates", so I'm game for hearing them and I actually really enjoy FW v K aff/hard-right aff v K debates

please don't be intimidated if i don't smile/emote much - i just have a really blank expression sometimes - if i smile or nod though you probably did a good thing

TLDR because reading 8 lines of text can be daunting:

- do whatever you want, being funny is an optional plus, make (good) arguments

my email is ddave17@berkeley.edu

you can add me to the email chain if you want, doesn't really matter to me

I am the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

Little Rock Central High School

Please include me on the email chain: Courtney.Hornsby@lrsd.org

I most frequently judge congressional debate and Lincoln Douglas.

For policy—I default to comparative advantage. Write my ballot for me. I flow thoroughly, and speed is fine, but I will let you know about clarity.

For LD: I can judge most styles; do what you do best but make sure you thoroughly explain your arguments. Blippy theory arguments, tricks, and frivolous arguments are things I’m not inclined to vote on. I prefer substance and rarely vote on things I don’t understand.. Speed is fine but clarity is more important. Above all, debate is a communicative activity so judge instruction is key.

I'm a high school debater at the Barstow school, I have been debating for 3 years now. 

Aff

I like it when the Aff team has good impacts that they explain and extend through the whole debate.

I don't mind a K Aff as long as you explain it and make sure that the Neg team and I understand what is going on.

Neg

I don't mind a K as long as you explain it and make sure that the Aff team and I understand what is going on.

When you are explaining your impacts make sure you make the links and the impacts of your arguments clear.

I will vote on whatever as long as it is explained. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just names. Don't be obnoxious or rude, this leads to immediate loss of speaker points.

T

Do NOT run any sort of Topicality argument just to kick out of it in the block. I will not vote you up if you run T for the purpose of a time suck. But other than that, I will evaluate it if you do end up going for it in the end.   

Procedurals  

Speed: Spreading IS okay, I will want to be on your email chain or if you flash put me in it. 

Card clipping: If you get called out on card clipping I will ask for the evidence and your proof.

Time keeping: Please keep your own time. I will not keep track of your prep time for you.

Prep time: Again, keep your own time. I do not count flashing as prep unless it takes more than a few minutes.

K's 

neg

I am okay with kritiks. If you run high theory you better be able to explain it in the round. If you read one off and K, make the block neat. I will only vote on the K if you can give me an in depth alt debate and be able to explain your link analysis.

aff

If you decide to not read a plan text that is also okay. I will be able to follow you. 

I need to be on the chain due to accessibility issues. Nyx.Debate@Gmail.com. Thanks! If there is stuff in the chain you don't want shared with others, let me know and I'll make sure to delete files after the round. Also, if you're doing performance debate and don't want to send me stuff, you should not send me stuff. However, if you're going to be fast (and especially if you're online) please send me analytics so I can make sure I've correctly flowed everything you've said.

Started debate as a novice at Johnson County Community College -> debated/coached at the University of Central Oklahoma -> Independent Debate Work -> Coached at Texas Tech -> Coached at University of Texas - San Antonio -> Current Coach at KU. I'm cute AND I have experience folx.

Pronouns: He/Him or They/Them? I'm an experience with anxiety. Let me know your pronouns if you want.

How can I make the debate better/easier for you, the debater? Let me know if you need any accommodations, I'll do my best to make them happen.

Random Thoughts - Basically, I love impacts.

I will listen to any debate. Please, do whatever you do best, just explain it to me. Why is your aff/neg amazing, and why do I need to vote for it? I love impact comparison and think it should be done more. However, on that note - racist, transphobic, ableist, homophobic ect remarks will not be tolerated.

I mostly debated the K (queerness, anti-blackness, settler colonialism, trans*ness). But see above - I will judge any debate, and I will vote neg on framework/theory because hey, sometimes the neg wins that debate (when they give me a solid TVA and focus on the impact). What I'm trying to say is - if you want to run framework or six off you can still pref me. If you want to do performance debate please pref me.

The short notes:

K Aff v Framework:

Aff: Win that the great idea that your aff is should be exported / used in round and outweighs framework.

Neg: Please show to me how your flavor of fairness/education/clash outweighs the aff. A good/decent TVA is a must.

KvK Debate:

Aff: Show me why the neg's K is bad/can't solve for the aff AND why there's no stable link.

Neg: Please have specific links to the affirmative. Either solve the aff OR prove that the aff is irrelevant.

Policy Stuff:

We all learned about timeframe, probability, and magnitude when we were tiny debaters. These concepts seem simple, but if you cannot prove to me why your aff matters / impacts are bigger or happen first / stable link story / ect then it's a hard round for me to decide. Make it clear in your last speech what you are winning and why it matters.

Other Stuff:

I love a good word PIC. Theory can be fun - in moderation.

I'm sure I'll add onto this as the season goes on, but for now, if you have more questions, just send me an email or ask pre-round.

A bit of background:
I debated policy 3ish years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

Most of what is below is tailored towards policy debate:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes for Christ's sake.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

Right off the bat -

Keep your own time, prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer, open CX, a little prompting is alright (too much and you'll lose speaker points).

I debated at Heritage for 4 years, so I'm no stranger to critical theory. But I prefer more real world tangible arguments and strong structure. The deeper into critical literature (aka the weirder) you go, the more I'm going to want additional explanation. I've also been out of actual participation of debate for a number of years, so sticking to normal conventions is probably your best strategy.

That being said, I'll listen to anything provided you argue it well. Just do your job as a debater and you'll be fine.

Good luck!

I'm a high school policy debater at Barstow and I vote on the flow. 

1. Explain more cards, more explanation the better. Distinguish between tag and text. 

2. Staying on case is good because it creates good clash and engagement, but I do like analytical arguments. Give explanations of how you interpret arguments. 

Neg: 

I like Ks, but only if you understand and explain them well. I will vote on theory, but show me that you understand it. Don't take 5 off into rebuttals, feel free to kick out and go for your strongest ones. 

Aff:

Make answers and analytical arguments to theory. You should win case. I need to hear warrants. I am open to all kinds of debate but please focus on the topic at first.

haley.turner@barstowschool.org PLEASE include me in e-mail chains

I am a former high school debater. I participated in policy debate at Barstow from 2012-2017, and I have judged many policy rounds.

AFF: I want warrants in rebuttals - don't just extend names, tell me why I should care about these things. I prefer plan texts. I am open to all kinds of debate, but I think the debate should start by addressing the topic, how that looks is up to you.

NEG: I will vote on Theory if it is well explained and not dropped. No need to keep 5 off case into rebuttals, kick out of args if you are losing them GO FOR YOUR STRONG ONES, rebuttals should focus on 1-3 off. I weigh case first, (no need to weigh off case arguments if case has not been addressed) so do not forget to address case arguments.

I will vote on anything, as long as it is explained. I like Ks if you can explain them (DO NOT ASSUME I HAVE READ THE LITERATURE) and if your opponents and I understand what is going on. Analytical arguments are GOOD, don't just let args drop. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just authors. Please don't attempt to change my mind during my RFD. Do not be obnoxious, rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or offensive in any means. This will lead to immediate loss of speaker points and probably loss of the round.

Hello lil baby debaters !!!!

heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..

I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.

-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end

-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.

-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say

-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**

______________________

-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful

-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence

-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc

____________________

-- rebuttals need impact calc.

-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning

-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct

_______________________

-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.

-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins

-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.

________________________

-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex

-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.

-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep

-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.

-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read

-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.

______________________

-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!

-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.

--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped

______________________

FOR PF and LD...

-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make

-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it

-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.

-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)

-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches

-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.

-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.

_______________________

Big Questions

-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.

- don't just repeat your case over and over...

________________________

Congress

- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation

- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.

——————————————————-

-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. whitemadisonj@gmail.com

-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won

-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed

-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!