Hi! I'm Mattew (not a typo) Anazco, and I'm a freshman at Cornell University. I did debate at Staples High School in Westport, CT, where I did 2 years of traditional Lincoln-Douglas for a local league program before coming to Harrison High School, New York. I was not an active member of Harrison's team, but I'm familiar with the fundamentals of debate.

I want to see rounds with genuine clash and arguments with warrants that are fleshed out. I want to see clear reasons you link to a framework on both sides - otherwise, I won't have a clear way to evaluate the round. Please give voting issues, and don't use debate jargon or spread! I will do my best to evaluate the round based on what you tell me. Be sure to extend the warrants for your cards, not just the names. Real world examples and statistics are helpful.

if you post-round me and be mean to me i will cry on the spot

I love debate!!!!

for email chains: zooark038@gmail.com

Hello,

As a judge, I look for my debaters to be firm but respectful. Use the time to prove why you're correct and why your opponent is not. I expect the round to get heated at times, but respect for your opponent and judge is crucial.

I will keep official time, but participants are welcome to keep time as well. The timer will begin ON YOUR FIRST WORD after I have instructed you to begin.

Feel free to ask me questions at any point and I will answer to the best of my ability. Good Luck!

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

I prefer to judge traditional LD, not circuit.

I also do not want debaters to spread - the purpose of debate is logic, rhetoric, and persuasion; you can't persuade me of anything if neither your opponent nor I can follow what you're saying. Spreading is a disengaging strategy; debates are won by engaging in clash.

If you're sharing cases at the start of the round via email, please include me: acirelli@unityprep.org

Hello,

I am a former PF and LD debater, I am thrilled to be judging. Few preferences; no spreading- I have to be able to hear and understand you, it is okay if you’d like to keep your own time- I will keep time as well, and lastly let’s always make this fun.

raeanne.sclarke@gmail.com

Harrison High School '22

Include me on the email chain please: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hey! I'm James Cox (He/Him), and I'm currently a senior at Harrison High School, in Harrison, New York. I primarily compete on the national circuit, but I am also familiar with the traditional debate. If I am judging you, you're likely a novice, in which case below are some things that I'd like to see in the round. If you are a more advanced novice, please don't try to debate "circuit" just because you think I want to see that. I am tech>truth for the most part, but I have 0 tolerance for racism, sexism, etc., and I have no problem dropping someone if an argument is made that is harmful to other bodies within the space.

If you and your opponent are frequently competing on the national circuit, here is the link to Chetan Hertzig's paradigm. I agree with 99 percent of everything said here.

Hertzig's Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

novice rounds:

1. WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. PLEASE. Novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. Signpost! Please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when you're responding to your opponent's.

3. Give voters! Write my ballot for me.

if you have any questions about anything written here, please email me or ask before the round! Debating as a novice can be scary, so I'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs.

I've judged a lot of NLD lately but most of this holds true for VLD. Long story short, make sure you're debating LD, not 1-on-1 policy. Don't drop your framework; it's what makes LD so special. You need a criterion; it's your measuring stick. Tell me exactly why you win under one of the frameworks; it doesn't necessarily have to be yours. I very frequently hear a familiar laundry list in rebuttals: "I win on scope, I win on magnitude, I win framework debate...". Asserting it doesn't make it true; explain your reasoning. Use your NR/2AR to frame the round for me.

If you have a "minimizing xyz", "reducing xyz", etc. VC, you have a solvency burden, or at least need to demonstrate some harm reduction.

There is a lot of overlap between "students who want to spread" and "students whom I can't understand since they are stumbling over every other word" -- I'm around a traditional 6/circuit 3 on speed. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. I am a fast talker myself, but I want to actually hear your case and arguments and feel better-informed after the round. Debate should be open to everyone, not just schools with full-time prep teams.

I am a former LD assistant coach and judge with experience in LD, Parli, and BQ. Clash is critical-- don't talk past each other. If your opponent has the most ludicrous case ever known to humankind but you don't attack it, they're probably winning. Open to progressive arguments for sure but you need clash. Fairly familiar with philosophy. Respect your opponent in and after the round.

I'm from Wisconsin (Go Cheesemakers!) where I did humorous and oratory since my school didn't have a debate program. I went to Penn and did parli debate. Lived in South Dakota for three years and now back in Philadelphia.

Experience/about me:

I competed in HS PF my senior year and USX for two years before that. I made top 48 at NSDAs in 2016. I coached HS and MS debate for a year, and this is my 8th year judging LD. I typically have judged local tournaments in Ohio, so not all of my judging experience is on tabroom. If I had to guess, I've judged well over 100 rounds. I competed in collegiate forensics all four years of undergraduate, and I'm now coaching high school ethics bowl, so I've never really left the forensic community. I'm also currently a philosophy PhD candidate at the University of Pennsylvania, so if you have questions about phil or want suggestions, I'm happy to help. My research is in political philosophy, so I'm familiar with the standard FWs.

Preferences:

I'm a traditional judge, and I can handle a bit of speed, but absolutely no spreading or anything approaching spreading (if spreading is 100% speed and normal talking is 0%, I'm probably good with max, 60-70% if it's crystal clear). I'm pretty unfamiliar with circuit debate, so I haven't seen Ks/Theory/etc. to know what my preferences there are. I'm open to anything that's clearly explained and warranted.

I prefer when debaters are able to navigate me through the forest. What I mean by that is: a lot happens in an hour long debate; please help guide me through the end. Tell me how to weigh different impacts, tell me what's important, tell me big picture things, tell me how things are/aren't related, etc. Help me see the forest through the trees (I love that line so much, I have a tattoo to remind me of it).

I'm also really excited when debaters engage with the philosophy. Sometimes this just can't happen, e.g. both competitors use the same fw, but I like when I have to think and pay attention to the arguments.

Make judging as easy as possible for me. This is especially true for key voting issues. Use them to tell me how to vote and why. It's better if I don't intervene, and the best way for me not to intervene is for you to give me a way to vote.

LD uses philosophy. I'm a philosophy phd student. If you get the phil wrong, I will tell you on the ballot, but unless your opponent points it out, I will not use that against you (because philosophy is hard, badly written, and often open to interpretation).

Accessibility is the most important thing for me. If you make a round unsafe for me or your opponent, I will give you the loss. Just be nice to me and your opponents, and you don't need to worry. People come to this activity with a broad range of backgrounds, so unnecessary jargon/technical terms is a knock against you. If you don't understand something your opponent says, ASK!!! Example: It is way better to ask what deontology means if you don't know than trying to fake it or use context clues (this actually happened in a round that I judged)

Please use correct pronouns for everyone, and give TW/CW if necessary. If you're not sure if something deserves a CW, give one anyway. Better to be safe than sorry. Side note, I will always use "they" on the ballot.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep. I don't care how you share evidence.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Not evaluating anything that occurred out-of-round besides disclosure. I will listen to CX.

I don't care if you tag-team/open/ CX or use flex prep.

Any defaults I do have (would like to think I don't have any) can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

New 2NR evidence: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is one of my favorite arguments.

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

PLEASE share all evidence/cases BEFORE your speeches with me (and each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

I would STRONGLY prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations/the card format in the speech doc when paraphrasing.

I care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot. Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly.

If one team is reading properly cited evidence and the other is not, I will be very sympathetic if that team points this out and makes it a reason to drop the other team for ev ethics reasons (but it needs to be a complete argument)

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 2 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

I am a parent judge with limited exposure to Varsity LD Debate.

Please go slow to allow me to follow.

Email: knnmbd@yahoo.com

Hi! My name is Charlie and I am a senior at Princeton High School. This is my third year doing debate (all three years I have done exclusively PF). UPenn will be my first ever tournament judging, so I am super excited! Here is a list of some of my preferences:

• Cards are great but I will buy an argument that is well-warranted over an argument that revolves around one single card.
• Not sure if this is the norm in LD, but I work backwards on my flow. I only evaluate points made in the very last speech by either side.
• I like prereq weighing
• Please do not spread. I like conversation-paced, well warranted speeches. You can go faster, but understand that you run the risk of having me miss stuff and then getting angry when I said you conceded something that you didn't.
• 70% of the time, I believe that people call cards to get extra prep time for themselves. If it is obvious that you are taking advantage of this privilege, that may get reflected in your speaks. Please be organized with your cards so that you don't take more than a minute or two to get your evidence.
• I don't care about (or flow) cross.
• I have very little experience with progressive arguments. Frameworks are fine, but please make sure they are easy to understand. I would not recommend running kritiks or theory with me as your judge, but if you absolutely have to, put it in paragraph, paraphrased form. The key word with the progressive arguments for me is flowable.
• If you make the round fun for me to judge, or if I laugh, you and everybody else in the round will probably get higher speaks
• I'll write an RFD on the Tabroom website, but the majority of my feedback will be through an oral RFD. I will be one of those judges who doesn't disclose until after they have gone through their flow and every voter still in play.
• (For LDers) I'm not completely sure how LD works, so I am sorry in advance if a decision I make is because of my lack of understanding of LD (or if one of the above bullet points doesn't apply to you). While I am not a fan of postrounding, it is obviously okay to correct me if I mess up something in round (like speech times, etc).

Email: rcknight@wharton.upenn.edu

Hi, I'm Cole. I debated LD and PF for four years in high school in KY. Kentucky is mostly a trad circuit, so that's what I'm most comfortable with, but I did TOC in both PF and LD, so I'm not by any means unfamiliar with natcirc progressive stuff.That said, I haven't done anything debate related in two years so I would vastly prefer styles that I'm more used to. I encountered a decent amount of speed and theory on the natcirc back in my day, so if you absolutely have to spread or run phil or whatever, I'll judge it. But, I would highly highly discourage performance or super meaty Ks. At the end of the day, most of my debate experience involved V/VC, contentions, 7-8/10 speed, etc. so keep that in mind.

Basically, pref me if you feel like you have good trad cases that you don't want to have to run for parent judges. If you run super zany stuff for me it's likely to be kind of a crap shoot who I judge for, but resolutional T and Ks should be ok. Spreading is discouraged, but if you have to, it'll probably be ok too.

Policy Debate Coach - North Star High School, Newark, NJ

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Former policy debater and now second year policy-focused coach with some summer lab instruction experience. Comfortable with policy and critical approaches.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

Disads: Uniqueness argument is usually the determinant in my view.

Counterplans: Throw-away cps with no solvency warrants can be defeated by the Aff with much less time than the Neg spends in the block but don't be sloppy in the 2AC. I am receptive to theory here. See remarks on theory below.

Receptive to condo bad. I'm not your best judge for 5+ off-case

Kritiks: Receptive to aff or neg but not as a shield to not engage with the arguments the other team is making. Not clashing will put you behind. The link debate is important to me and you have a much better chance if you compare warrants effectively in this area. Thoughtful Alts, particularly with analytics referencing history/examples are meaningful to me. I do not (yet) have a lot of direct experience with the literature of many areas of kritiks, hence you need to slow down and make them clear

Theory: Given my experience level, I encounter new theory all the time and that is sometimes a challenge. If you want to have an impact on the ballot in these areas, slow down and make your argument clear. Blasting through theory will leave a void on my flow.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, most clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will generally not go below 27.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

Hi All,

I am a CFA. But I have minimal experience in judging, so consider me a lay judge.

A couple of things to look out for:

1- Don't spread. Go super slow. Be clear. Explain well. I flow pretty slow and will not vote off of arguments that I don't understand.

2- Minimize the use of fancy vocabulary or debate jargon. This will help me follow along better.

3- Don't be rude or aggressive. It is hard to understand when people are speaking over each other.

4-Avoid racism, sexism, ableism, or any form of discrimination. If this happens, I will most likely drop you.

Overall, have fun and enjoy yourselves!

hi! i'm angie khadijah. i studied philosophy at columbia (barnard class of '22) and competed on the houston circuit for 4 years @ cinco ranch high school. i've worked for the NYCUDL, judged at national circuit tournaments, and currently work with the Brooklyn Debate League (BDL) -- i'm passionate about speech advocacy!

questions about my paradigm? wanna chat? confused about my decision? feel free to email me! angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

tldr; give me a weighing mechanism so you don't leave the round confused by my decision. impact thru everything. link chains are super important. i will always look for the clearest path to the ballot and try to be as tab as possible.

speed is totally fine, but clarity is essential in this activity. use jargon when its needed please.

i will drop a debater who wields anti-Black/racist/unapologetically insensitive etc. speech or behavior if their opponent asks me to. this is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

LD

please add me to the email chain: angie@brooklyndebateleague.org

i am down to hear anything. this is your space, please use it how you'd like. i recognize the labor and time invested in this activity by so many of you, and sincerely thank you for sharing it with me.

i like kritikal debates, though i aim to be an approachable and reasonable judge for all levels/styles of debate :)

i am *not* the judge for you if t is your entire neg strat. i am not as well versed on t as some other judges and often find complex theory debates to be frivolous. i will hear anything, but want to remain fair to you!

i vote tech > truth but will definitely discuss truth-y issues if its problematic or if you wanna philosophize after the round.

i love performance and GREATLY appreciate all attempts to make the debate space less elitist + more radical.

impacts and links are important to me!

i avg 28.5 speaks. earn a 30 by being unique and memorable :)

yes i disclose and always try to give constructive feedback to both sides

PF

summary is the most important speech of the round, followed by rebuttal.

weigh! impact! tell me how to vote!! i love unique args.

i vote off my flow, looking for the clearest path to the ballot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debate is about education imo. feel free to talk about this space w me before or after round (or in round...do what you want)

HAVE FUN!! seriously, this activity is great and i hope to foster an inviting and intellectually rigorous space in all my rounds.

Strath Haven '23

Georgetown '28

LD (14 career bids; TOC quarters 2x; won a few tournaments + RRs), dabbled in CX

I coach withDebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

PFI (2/2024) Update - Topic: I'm relatively out of debate/not cutting prep. While I have (some) general knowledge about the Middle East and follow the news pretty closely, I don't know the topic meta, which means . . . I need clear case lists for T debates (which you should already do! see the T section) and you should explain non-intuitive acronyms (yes, I know what ISIS stands for).

PFI (2/2024) Update - Paradigmatic: This paradigm got quite long, you don't need to read through everything. I like policy debates, I can adjudicate K/T debates, and loathe trix/friv theory. I'll always vote on the flow, even if that means voting for an argument I don't like, so please don't make me do that. (Caveat: argument = claim warrant impact, which means "condo is a voting issue for strat skew" = 0 weight the same way "zeno's paradox means we can never reach an end point so vote for me" = 0 weight)

https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library

Yes, I want to be on the email chain! amanaker17@gmail.com

Speechdrop heg, but email is fine too.

Absent an email chain, don't be a sad panda, use an SDI flash drive!

I probably hold similar views to Jeffrey Kahn, Gabe Morbeck, Ben Morbeck, and Eli Manaker. I share a brain with Iris Chen and there is a 99% chance we vote the same way in every round. I am a marginally more fascist Elmer Yang, less-dead inside Tej Gedela, the antithesis of my family members (Sophia Tian/Shrey Raju), and strive to judge like Sam McLoughlin.

I read almost exclusively policy until the end of my senior year, so my ideal 2NR is probably DA+CP or impact turns, but I went for the K a decent amount (shoutout to the clown AFF), so I'm comfortable in most non-pomo kritik debates.

Tech > truth

You do you, debate is a game, let's all have fun and make this a nice, non-offensive, non-toxic place, etc.

I do not flow author names.

I'm very expressive, but smiles tend to indicate amusement rather than agreement with your argument.

Concessions do not need temperature! Arguments are not "cold conceded" or "hot dropped."

I'm probably less dogmatic than this paradigm makes me seem. Except for tricks. Grow up and read a real argument.

LD:

Tl;dr: pref me for policy, meh for K, strike for anything else.

***Most of this paradigm is geared towards circuit debate, if you're a novice, don't worry about it.

I don't flow author names. Yes, you can insert re-highlightings. I care more about evidence than most judges and do not think reading evidence is intervention -- arguments have as much weight as the warranting they get, which means that reading the words you said from a piece of evidence determines whether you have made an argument, or just written a tag-line.

Policy:

Impact turns are fun! If the 1NC is 7 minutes of impact turns (not spark/wipeout), you will enjoy your speaks.

I am a card carrying, Kool-aid drinking member of the "politics is sick bro" club. I love international relations and anything related to foreign policy. This means I am a fantastic judge for voting on "case/DA has as close to zero risk of impact as is possible in debate" (zero-risk =/= a thing) because most arguments in debate are so mind-bogglingly stupid they should lose to CX + smart analytics.

Cheaty counterplans are fun, but I'll be sympathetic to cheaty perms. I adore counterplan competition debates. Like, ADORE. (2/2024 Note: probably adore them less now cuz I haven't seriously thought about how to write perm texts in almost a year.)

Turns case is not offense, it is comparative impact calc and/or complicates AFF solvency.

"I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong." -- Gabe Morbeck.

Look, honestly, if you have me in the back for something that's not a policy round, I'm going to want to vote for whoever was making policy arguments. I'll always vote on the flow (provided you're making complete arguments, so not trix), so as long as you don't drop a bunch of things, and you give me a way to justify a policy ballot, I'll probably vote on it.

Kritiks:

I'm not a "no plan, no ballot" person, but I'm also not not a "no plan, no ballot" person. Fairness is an impact. Impact turns vs K AFFs = <333333.

K vs policy AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

topical K AFF: neutral ideologically + good for both sides

non-topical K AFF: will vote on the flow, but persuaded by T

K vs phil: how did you get me in the back . . . I will be confused . . .

AFFs should probably get to weigh case versus the K. Links are often more important than arbitrary, impact-justified frameworks. Unless your opponent has specified it makes them uncomfortable, I don't think a debater's identity influences argument choice. Pomo is nonsense, albeit fashionable. Condo probably justifies perf cons (e.g. security K + ME War DA), but the more egregious (multiple Ks) the abuse, the more likely I am to vote on condo.

I am quite comfortable not voting on arguments I didn't get or don't understand (especially when it comes to dense phil/pomo, it doesn't matter if the argument is dropped if I can't understand it). If I can't explain your argument back to the other team, I'm not voting for it.

Theory:

Slow on theory and analytics, please. I cannot stress enough that I would prefer slow + efficient >>>> speed, because I just won't be able to flow a million blips.

"Independent voting issues" are rarely voting issues. Infinite condo is good, but I am willing to listen to a condo 2AR (I will just be pre-disposed against it). RVIs make me sad. The 1AR gets theory, but reasonability and/or RANT are most likely sufficient to answer it. The only kind of spec I like is "spec your favorite multi-purpose fighter jet" (answer: F-35).

You should disclose open source. Period. I'll still evaluate the flow, but will err heavily towards os theory. Disclosure interps beyond that (cites, round reports, etc.) are significantly less appealing (e.g. if you're reading tournament name theory, the chance I vote on it is minimal).

Topicality:

I would prefer a DA+CP strategy, but I actually really like topicality vs policy AFFs (actual topicality, e.g. T-Appropriation on the JF22 LD topic). Please give case lists at the top. I'm typically unpersuaded by LD silliness that says semantics is completely divorced from pragmatics -- you need a definition to win a T debate, but you also need offense and reasons why that definition should be preferred.

Extremely unlikely to vote on Nebel-T/plans bad; chances are they violated another T shell --- read that! (Side note: please call it T-[topic word] instead of T-Nebel . . . what is this, T-Tassof again?) Far less likely to vote on the "grammar DA"/Niemi, and it is absolutely not an RVI.

Trix:

Here is what will happen if you read trix: I will sleep/do some homework and then vote for whoever tried to have an actual debate.

Phil:

I actually really enjoy pure philosophy (e.g. Sophia-style phil (Prospect ST)), but you should not be preffing me for it if you read trix-y phil/super complicated stuff because I won't make a good decision. If you end up with me in the back, explain your theory the way Oscar explains what a surplus is to Michael (for uncultured people who haven't seen The Office: explain like I'm 5).

Examples --> Ava understands --> W + good speaks.

Epistemic modesty makes exactly zero sense --- how do you combine weighing deontic and consequentialist impacts? Collapsing to calc indicts will make my eyebrows go like this: v

Trad/What If I Hit a Novice And Don't Want to Make Them Sad But Also Want to Win???:

You can be circuit, but be nice and make the round educational (e.g. don't read 10-off, spread at 40% speed). I won't dock your speaks if you sit down early.

Note for PFI: I did lay-debate in high school, and while I personally enjoyed circuit LD more, I'm comfortable evaluating these rounds. I will always judge by the flow, but that doesn't mean you need to change your strategy for me.

PF:

I'll probably be able to evaluate rounds fine, but don't know event specific norms. Please read actual evidence(why do PFers not cut cards properly??? Your cards should be cut! They should be disclosed on the PF wiki (https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/)! They should be sent out in a speech doc!). The faster you go and more evidence you read the happier I'll be, but do not do "progressive" PF. There is an event for that. It is called policy. Stop ruining PF.

Speaks:

CXes where you are knowledgeable and funny = higher speaks.

***I WILL NOT BE ADDING SPEAKS FOR ANY OF THE NOTES BELOW -- the only reason I'm not deleting them is because I am sentimental and they bring me happiness; plus, I remember being a smol freshman who read paradigms in her free time cuz she wanted to learn everything about debate, so for anyone else who needed to get a life as much as I did, here are some funnies:

-.1 per each time you say "LARP" instead of policy. In the wise words of my wife: "LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention???" --- Sophia Tian

-.1 per every 10 seconds spent reading an underview

-.1 every time you add temperature to concessions. It's annoying and inefficient.

+.5 if you answer Peters 04 with Byman 10

+.1 if you say "heehoo" correctly

+.5 if you say "heehoo" in front of Elmer (recordings of reaction, please!)

+.1 for a good SNL reference or HS impact quote. (I have an embarrassingly encyclopedic knowledge of both). Remind me before RfD or I'll forget.

+.1 if you're "free to be me." I will laugh hysterically. Please ensure I have not passed out from lack of oxygen. Let me know before RfD.

+.1 if you use Jeff Winger's explanation for Lacan. Flag it before the RfD.

+.1 if you guess who wrote the joke paradigm.

---- OLD (JOKE) PARADIGM ----

Introduction

Hi! I’m Ava Manaker (aah-vaah man-acre). Call me Mrs. Wikipedia or "The Cub" else I give you an L0. No, I do not want to be on the email chain but if you really want me to be and lose a speak, here is my email: amanaker17[at]gmail[dot]com.

Overview

I am a debater at Strath Haven High School, but I secretly wish I went to Mission San Jose High. As a debater, I primarily read Kant+trix, but I’m very tab. Here is my preference of argumentation to judge (in terms of comfortability and desire):

1--Trix/Friv Theory

2--Phil/High Theory Ks

3--Legit T/Theory/IdPol Ks

Strike--Larp

PS: If you tell me your favorite song by Troye Sivan or Why Don't We, I'll give you an extra speak.

Larp

I hate it! I hate it with all my heart! The only larp argument I like is spark, I won’t vote on anything. Is this intervention? Yes. Do I care? No. Oh also, weighing is overrated!

Kritiks

I only like high theory. If you read identity politics, I will vote for the other side on presumption. Weighing case and perms are not persuasive--when responding to Ks, people should only make link or impact turns.

Phil

Love it! I am most versed in Kant and virtue ethics. Not persuaded by util. Please explain the syllogism clearly.

Theory

I love friv shells - it makes debate entertaining. A good 2nr/2ar on a frivolous shell gets you a W30. I’m willing to vote on actual shells, but they’re soooo boring like c'mon people get creative. Default drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps. Don’t make me default stuff or you’re forcing me to intervene, and that’s on you.

Tricks

YASSSS!! My favorites are logcon and external world skep, but I’m just as willing to vote on the resolved a priori and evaluate the debate after the 1ac. Just remember, I don’t flow off the doc, but for tricks I’ll make the exception so I can follow along.

Speaks

Unlike many judges, my range is a 0-30. You start at a 25. If you’re good, I go up by increments of 1. If you’re bad, you get an L0.

If you guess who wrote this paradigm (correctly), I'll give you plus .1.

Hello, I am a parent judge.

My son is on the Bronx High School of Science Speech and Debate Team.

Please explain your arguments clearly.

Please speak slowly. I want to be able to follow what you are stating.

Good Luck!

Hi! For my public forum competitors, I ask only three things. One: please do not spread. I understand that this format requires that you get out a lot of information in a short period of time, but please try to keep it comprehensible. Second, please always keep it civil. Third, please stay on the resolution provided. I accept both frameworks and off-time road maps.

Please feel free to debate at your own pace. I only ask two things of the Public Forum competitors that I'm judging. First, that they don't spread (talk at an incomprehensibly fast rate), and second that they remain respectful and cordial to their fellow competitors and judge at all times. A spirited debate is awesome, but a shouting match is decidedly not. Rules for other formats that I may judge are listed below.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate:

-My four years of debating were spent entirely in Public Forum, and resultingly I'm more experienced with arguments backed by hard evidence as opposed to wholly tech-based or framework-based ones. However, this doesn't mean I consider the latter two to be any less legitimate—as long as you argue your case well, I will evaluate you based on the merit of the argument provided.

-I understand that spreading is more common in this format—if you have to do it, I won't hold it against you. However, I ask that you try your best to keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener, even if they're at a faster pace than one is accustomed to listen to.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

-I do not evaluate disclosure theory, and I advise any competitor who plans on using it in a round I'm judging to rethink their strategy going ahead.

-I allow off-time roadmaps.

-Keep it civil always.

Policy Debate:

-Like with LD, I understand that spreading/fast-paced speeches are the norm, or at the very least accepted. While I understand the constraints of time may necessitate such behavior, I will once again request that you keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener so I can fully appreciate your argument.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

Not a lay judge.

Debated 1yr of PF and 1yr of LD.

Was 1 of the 2 co-captains for my high school debate team, AFBHS S&D.

I look for:

-Debate Jargon (key words)- “Void,” “Drop,” “Extend,” etc.

-Weighing Impacts and/or framework.

-Good CX.

-Quantifiable Statistical Evidence & Credible Examples.

-Clear Diction & Expressive Tone.

-Keep track of your own prep/speech/and cx time.

17+ years as competitor and coach in Texas and New Jersey

Spreading - I am fine with spreading as long as you can be understood. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it's to deliver as much material as possible within the time limit. Articulation and enunciation are key. If you aren't doing vocal warm-ups before the round, you probably aren't ready to spread.

Case sharing - I do not give my email for case sharing. Unless there is something specifically mentioned in the debate that I need to read, my job is not to read your case to understand it. You should deliver your case in a manner that is comprehensible without having to be read. That is the art of debate; this isn't just about reading, it's about presentation.

Sportsmanship - Part of being a good debater includes the time when you are not speaking. Be aware the round starts the minute you enter the room. Carry yourself with professionalism and respect.

hi, I toc qualled 2x and broke to octos in VLD, i earned two bids. I am comfortable evaluating any argument, and I'll give very high speaks if we can efficiently start and finish the round. Be respectful to each other and have fun

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Hey hey I'm Shannon! I competed in Pittsburgh for 3 years in high school in a traditional circuit and have been coaching at Fordham Prep since 2020. I understand most progressive stuff, but if you plan on running high level T's or insane RVI's with wacky interps thought my coffee order is an iced oat vanilla latte and I will need it to dissect what you are saying thank you.

Big believer that debate is a game, I just don't want to have to be the one to determine the rules of the game. Think how the rules of Uno change based on who you're playing with, I don't want to have to decide the rules of the round, every round.

please put me on the email chain, esp if you're spreading: scrodgers22@gmail.com

I'm a Special Education teacher and assistant coach for Princeton High School's Speech & Debate Team.

Email: adibafsyed@gmail.com

General:

1. I'm a lay judge.

2. Don't be offensive. If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

3. Signpost & be clear.

4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25 speaks. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

5. LD - set up email chain before the round and I’ll add .5 to your speaks

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun! If you’re the only person in the room having fun, then you just lost a round.

Good luck!

paradigm is being written by your judge's daughter

I'm a lay judge so that means:

1) No spreading

2) Cannot evaluate prog (Ks, Theory, Phil, etc.)

3) Keep track of your own time

4) Good eye contact + off time road maps

Be respectful and make sure your evidence isn't clipped/offensive. Don't make the debate space inaccessible in any way.

Good luck! :)

Info

Hello, my name is Everest Yang (He/Him); you can call me "Everest" or "Judge"

I am a sophomore at Brown University and attended Lexington High School. I primarily competed on the national circuit but also have experience on the local circuit ---> Lincoln Douglas: 3 years, Public Forum: 1 Year

Add me on the email chain: everestyang2016@gmail.com

Overview For Novices/Local Tournaments (Scroll down for Varsity):

SPEAK CLEARLY and signpost (give a roadmap before speeches). I'm cool with any speed as long as you are clear and your opponent is comfortable with it.

Value Criterion/Framework holds the highest layer. I don't care about "value" debates.

Arguments should be extended through the flow. I will not evaluate new responses in the 2NR/2AR.

Use evidence to back up your claim.

Do not use CX to prep- asking good questions will increase your speaks.

Make sure to do WEIGHING in your later speeches and COLLAPSE to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well. I tend to vote for well-warranted/impacted arguments.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc. Don't be a jerk against a Novice, i.e. spreading like crazy, reading Ks/Theory/Tricks.

Overall, I tend to be generous and give good speaker points.
I always disclose the ballot if the tournament allows me to. I will also disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.

Overview For Varsity:

Quick Prefs

Theory - 1

Policy - 1/2

Phil - 2

T - 2/3

Kritiks - 4

Friv Theory - 4/5

Trixs - 5/Strike

Specifics

Tech > Truth

Policy -

This is cool - I feel comfortable evaluating most arguments. Just make sure to do clear weighing, especially in dense LARP v LARP rounds. I like DAs and CPs if warranted well.

Theory -

Defaults: No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD, Fairness, Education

Read any shell you want with real abuse. Go slower and be clear on analytics. Frivolous theory is fine, but I have a lower threshold. Disclosure is a good norm! Condo is also probably good...

Phil -

I'll probably be able to understand the main Philosophers, primarily Kant. That being said, I am fine with whatever you're reading, but it's good to have a clear syllogism and explain the FW clearly

Ks -

I'll do my best to evaluate, but I'm not very familiar with kritiks. I'll probably be better for Policy v K since it makes the most sense to me. K v K and K v Phil can get confusing sometimes, especially when there are conceded conflicting theories of power, so weighing and direct clash is good. Extinction outweighs can beat back most Ks.

Tricks -

I've heard of Aprioris, NIBs, Truth Testing but some of these trix just get way too blippy for me to evaluate comfortably.

Worst case scenario strike me because I don't really understand these arguments too well breh.

Speaks:

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there. I'll boost your speaks if you bring me food/snacks or if you're funny.

I will disclose speaks if both debaters collectively agree.

Feel free to ask me anything before and after the round.

Good luck and have fun!!!

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.