I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

Vista Ridge '22 I UT '26

I competed for two years in LD and for 2 years in PF in high school.

Before Round

• Put me on the chain please: kalicarrier26@utexas.edu
• feel free to ask me any questions you may have

In Round

• I am a tech over truth judge which means I'll buy whatever argument is argued the best. For example, in the context of the round, I will believe the earth is flat if you can effectively prove to me so.

• Well-run frameworks are valuable, preferably introduced and expanded upon in earlier speeches; if no framework is given I will default to util
• I do not necessarily evaluate CX heavily but please keep it respectful and productive for your sake
• In the 2nd rebuttal, establish a framework or the beginning of one; don't just re-extend, address and engage with opponents' arguments.
• Defense isn't sticky, so extend; The summary should go beyond repetition, interact with opponents' arguments, and focus on key arguments for the round.
• In the FF, narrow down the round to 1 or 2 key voters with thorough extensions; overcomplicating weakens arguments.
• If running progressive arguments, adapt them to the format of the debate and ensure clarity; speech docs are appreciated.
• I am comfortable evaluating K's, just make sure they fit into the format of the debate and maintain clarity.
• If you run theory as a sole voting issue, persuade me to drop the debater; abusive or unfair theory won't be rewarded.
• Weigh your arguments, especially with conflicting evidence. Please do not make me have to interpret your evidence for you.

Extra

• Be respectful to everyone in the round.
• Any racist, homophobic, discriminatory, and/or derogatory speech will not be tolerated and will automatically result in me voting you down with 25 speaks.

enjoy debating y'all!

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical-"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I don't really have a preset threshold on how many conditional advocacies are okay, but I generally find myself enjoying watching rounds with less than 4 conditional advocacies more than rounds with 4+ in CX rounds. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to vote on condo bad in rounds with less than 4 negative advocacies, this is just a statement of personal preference. For the LDers looking over this (NFA, or HS), I find myself enjoying rounds with less than 3 advocacies more than rounds with 3+.

I'm probably not voting on disclosure theory at a HS tournament unless we're at a TOC bid tourney (UIL norms, and new TFA rules), if you're a college debater you should be disclosing and I am very open to voting on disclosure theory.

I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this (with the exception of condo/dispo bad).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I really have any dispositions toward any CP (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more) however I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit. I typically start the round from a drop the argument mindset and need warranted reasons as to why I should drop the team in these debates though. The only CPs I'm really suspect of are artificially competitive CPs (if you're confused what I mean, look here: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid ) but, I have in fact voted on them before.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have voted on them, and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round. If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic, I'm also probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college nukes topic and none of your ev is about nuclear weapons, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX income inequality topic/LD topic of the month)

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

This is true of all levels of debate, but it's something the NFA LDers looking over this need to pay closer attention to. Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in this event. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, John Anderson, and Josh Miller-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I am not a philosophy head myself. I will make a pretty key distinction here though-- I am not a fan of these cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing that, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez", I do not enjoy this style of argumentation. 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 27, tops).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

UT '26

I did high school debate for 4 years and have both local & nat circuit experience. I did pf for 2 years and qualified to TFA both times. I consider myself a pf judge.

If I hear you were discriminatory or bigoted in any fashion at any point, in or outside of the round, you will immediately get tanked speaks for the rest of the season.

Before the round

• Include me in the email chain (knayeon117@gmail.com)

• If you are going to spread (full on ld/cx level spreading, double breathing and whatnot), send me a speech doc. Unless you plan on reading that fast I won’t need a speech doc.

• I don't care about how fast you read as long as you send me all the evidence/arguments. If I miss an argument that is not on the speech doc, I won't put it down on the flow. It is your responsibility to articulate your arguments well enough for me to understand.

In round

• tech > truth.

• If evidence A says sky is green and evidence B says sky is blue, please weigh and tell me which evidence I should prioritize or I would be forced to intervene and believe what I think is true (evidence B). As long as you weigh evidence A over evidence B, yes I will believe that the sky is green.

• I like framework when it’s run well. 2nd rebuttal is too late to read an overview/framework of any sort: the round is already too crystalized for you to tell me what I should prioritize first and foremost when signing the ballot and if you are going to run framework, you should be willing to sacrifice your speech time to expand upon it- aka take the risk of going first. Utilitarianism is the default weighing in round unless you tell me otherwise.

• I don't vote off of cross unless it is completely mind blowing. Most of the times, I won't be paying attention to it. If you want to bring up something from cross in your later speeches, shout "Judge, this is important" or something along those lines during cross so that I can note it down. Don't turn cross into a shouting match and don't be rude.

• Don’t extend your own case in both rebuttals and in 2nd rebuttal you HAVE to frontline or you’ll automatically lose the round. Reextending cards in case isn’t frontlining.

• Defense isn’t sticky

• Whatever goes conceded in summary can’t be brought up in final focus and in summary go beyond just reiterating what went on in rebuttal and be interactive with your opponents’ argument.

• In final focus, the round should be narrowed down to 1 or 2 voters and I honestly don’t like it when you overcomplicate things by trying to go for multiple things when you can just focus on one voter and extend it really thoroughly. A good final focus should mirror summary and quite literally tell the judge how to write their ballot.

• Progressive arguments : I probably won't be able to evaluate progressive arguments to an extent that LD/CX judges do, so keep that in mind whenever running them.

• YALL PLS DON'T BE LIKE "OH THE SPREADING WAS ANALYTICAL" I CAN'T FOLLOW ALONG, ALWAYS SEND A SPEECH DOC

• I don’t want to see a pf round turn into LD 2.0 so if you are going to run progressive arguments, make sure it fits into the format of a PF round. Don’t spread like 5 off and expect me to follow along w/o a speech doc and I honestly don’t think any education can come out of a round that a judge can’t understand properly.

• Kritiks: this is the progressive argument I feel most comfortable in judging, in most cases I probably won’t have any trouble evaluating them.

• Theory: If you are going to run it, do it well. What I mean is if you would like to run theory as a sole voting issue in the round, you would need to put in time and effort to persuade me into thinking that I should drop the debater (which is a pretty high goal). If you are going to read it as a time suck and ultimately end up kicking it (which you totally can), don't expect me to account for the t shell in making my decision. Also, don't be abusive with theory. If you're objectively from a big school with lots of resources running theory to a small school who doesn't even know what theory is, I don't think the round would be very fair. In short, don't run theory just because you want an easy win and don't weaponize it.

• don’t be abusive/disrespectful with progressive arguments

• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, or derogatory in any manner. That would result in a 25L. If you're going to run an identity based argument(especially afropessimism, orientalism, LGBTQ+ literature, etc) don't do it unless you're part of that community.

• Please weigh. If you and your opponents both do everything right and I'm left with two valid arguments that say the opposite, it is quite literally impossible for me to determine who the winner is without intervening. Tell me why your evidence or logic is better than your opponent's.

WSD Paradigm

• yall pls don't sound like this https://youtu.be/tj7n9Cnbmu8?si=pCJCPt634i-zjD8s&t=76
• the so called "worlds accent" is my biggest pet peeve
• 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 startat the latestin 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 inanyof them, i will not evaluate it

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.