conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my third year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, would much prefer you to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism!

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- Speech time: I will continue to flow your speech until ~10 seconds after time is up. I will stop listening/flowing past that point.

- Prep Time: I do keep track of prep in the round, and I will be a bit unhappy if you go over that time. If you end up using more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing: please finish before the round starts.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the start of round! Email is nylacrayton@gmail.com

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

TLDR:

Mills E. Godwin High School, Class of 2020.

Johns Hopkins University, Class of 2024.

Even though I have taken a step back from debate, I judge 10+ tournaments every season, mainly in PF and CX.I am not going to lie to you guys about my skillset because you guys spend so much time preparing your cases, and you all deserve a judge that you know about and want. There are too many judges who are adjudicating and evaluating rounds that they should not be because they are not transparent about their skill level.

With that in mind, I am an experienced judge in PF and in Parli, an above average judge in CX and LD. Take that however you want.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards.

I graduated from Johns Hopkins University (Class of 2024), where I participated in American Parliamentary, broke, and received speaker awards. I majored in neuroscience on the pre-med track, so if you have any questions about what pre-med track is like or have any questions about college, let me know!

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com.

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@alumni.jh.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; I am nowhere near as good as I am in Policy as I am in PF. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. You should treat me just as an above average judge if I am in the Policy judge pool.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

NSU '22

UPenn '26

During my career, I won NSDA Nationals and got to quarterfinals of the TOC.

Add me to the email chain afrankk@sas.upenn.edu

Tech>truth - I will vote off the flow and on any argument that's well warranted, extended, and weighed.

I ran a lot of structural violence arguments during my career. When done well, I am very inclined to vote on these types of arguments. However, if you tell me why extinction/util matters more than I am also more than willing to vote on that.

Defense is not sticky - this is especially true with 3 minute summaries.

Frontline everything (offense and defense) in second rebuttal on the argument(s) you're going for; you should also probably already be collapsing in second rebuttal. There are very few teams who can pull off front-lining every contention well and still get to the other team's case with enough time.

I am extremely unlikely to default. I will try to find any piece of offense in the round I can vote on. If I can't, I'll probably just vote for the team that debated better.

I can usually flow most speeds, but if I think you're going too fast, I will ask for a case doc after.

Do:

- Roadmaps (you rlly only need to tell me where you're starting if you signpost well)

- Comparative Weighing

- Make me laugh in cross and/or speeches

- Pre-flow before the round

Do Not:

- Take a while to get a piece of evidence; more than 2 minutes and i'll probably get annoyed

- Call me "judge" - this feels too official

- Be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

- Read that 900 million ppl go into poverty during recessions without some sort of warrant

Theory:

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I won't drop you on face for paraphrasing or not disclosing, but I would be very likely to vote on disclosure and/or paraphrasing theory.

The purpose of theory is made to make the debate space more equitable and improve norms. Do not just read theory with the sole purpose of winning the debate.

Kritiks:

Probably not the best judge to read a K in front of. I have minimal experience with them, but if you want to run one I will try my best to evaluate it.

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. PLEASE. It doesn't matter if you're winning an argument if you don't tell me why that argument matters more than the other team's.

If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important and why.

Trigger Warnings:

Trigger warnings are only needed when describing graphic/explicit content. There have only been 2-3 times in my debate career in which I've encountered arguments that truly needed a TW. I don't think trigger warnings are necessary for arguments that say common phrases such as "domestic violence." These types of arguments are important and should be read in the debate space.

I will always disclose my decision and please feel free to postround me :)

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats quals, etc etc.

put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow

any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an L25.

PF

Case

• pretty straightforward do what you want
• send case with cards before you speak
• framing should be read here

Rebuttal

• anything not responded to here is considered conceded
• please send docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs

Summary

• by far the most important speech
• if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
• any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
• extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
• defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense

Final Focus

• like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
• please mirror summary in both content and order
• weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me

Extra

• cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
• speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
• i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will tank speaks but will not lose a round, unless that argument is made
• I am happy to evaluate progressive args but you probably have more experience with it than I do, so keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to
• be nice to novices, you can beat them without being rude and condescending

WSD

• I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing in any of them, i will not evaluate it

• used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats quals, etc etc.

put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow

any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an L25.

PF

Case

• pretty straightforward do what you want
• send case with cards before you speak
• framing should be read here

Rebuttal

• anything not responded to here is considered conceded
• please send docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs

Summary

• by far the most important speech
• if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
• any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
• extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
• defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense

Final Focus

• like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
• please mirror summary in both content and order
• weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me

Extra

• cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
• speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
• i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will tank speaks but will not lose a round, unless that argument is made
• I am happy to evaluate progressive args but you probably have more experience with it than I do, so keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to
• be nice to novices, you can beat them without being rude and condescending

WSD

• I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing in any of them, i will not evaluate it

• used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.