Experience:

Hello everyone! My name is Marley Anthony and I attend Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. I was a debater throughout high school, and now I judge. I have judged many debate rounds, and as a former debater, I try my hardest to be as helpful as possible. That said, I like to leave specific feedback in the comment sections so please read those carefully. I also like to leave a thorough RFD so do not overlook it. Please ask all logistical questions about my judging style before the round starts. I am open to MOST stylistic choices (i.e., speed, frameworks, formatting, etc.) I am not a parent nor a lay judge so I am more open to faster-paced speaking styles. Again, please ask me, and don't hesitate if you have any relevant questions about the round before it starts.

Conduct:

While I have rarely experienced this, I would be remiss if I didn't state that I have a no-tolerance policy for any and all (overtly) rude behavior (i.e., blatant yelling, name-calling, excessive sarcasm, etc). Debate is supposed to be a lucrative enjoyable experience to help you grow both personally and academically. As a former debater, I understand that at times rounds can get stressful, but I encourage all of you to be respectful and operate under the golden rule. I will be making slight to severe speaker point deductions to reflect the above behavior(s) if applicable to the round.

Please be respectful and considerate of everyone's time and efforts.

Tracking & Flow:

Please keep in mind that I like to flow all speeches except for crossfire, so please be mindful of your statements. If for whatever reason you misspoke, you must get creative in regards to how you get back on track. Again, I flow everything except for crosses so please be intentional with any and all speeches.

Thank you, and good luck!

Debate is foremost education in speaking well, an exercise in communication. I despise spreading. If you spread, I will not flow. Slight speed is only justified in the 1AR and final PF speeches.

In PF, I do not like Blippies (although he's wonderful with children). I want arguments responded to in full. Summary and FF are there to pick and choose which arguments you will focus on - make the case for why the arguments you chose are more important with Voters, and ignore the rest. XFire should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XF is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. A dropped argument is only important if the other side made a convincing case that this was a key argument. As with PD I want roadmaps and signposting, always.

In Policy, SHIST Stock Issues, weigh Advantage/DAs after that. But of course if another paradigm is raised and not responded to then I will vote on that. Prefer closed Cross-X and DAs in the 2N- old school. Will accept Kritiks and CPs, but not preferred. Will vote on T. XX should be about Q&A, not about arguments- XX is not binding unless brought up in a subsequent speech. Want ev-> fully sourced, good clash, signposting, road maps, and Voters.

In LD, I expect a Values Debate Round to be actually about values and philosophy. I am interested in the Value and the Criterion being argued. A value should be more than "morality", which is just another word for "values".

XD: I've judged XD at Nats before. Give me roadmap, signposting, Framework in Constructives, Roadmap in Rebuttals. Sources should have author/date.

As a student I participated in every IE and Debate form at AHS (save LD). My favourite events are IX, POI, INF, and PD. Created the Moroccan debate league and trained the coaches and judges from multiple schools there, beginning in '12; took teams to Nats multiple times and coached six schools in Morocco, Mongolia, and China.

Judge Paradigm for Wade Drummonds

Experience Level: I coached a high school debate club since 2021 and have judged two debates in the 2023-2024 school year. As a high school teacher, I integrate debate into my lessons, providing oral feedback to students. My direct experience in debate is limited to coaching and judging; I was not part of a debate club in high school or college.

Judging Philosophy: I value logical arguments supported by evidence and clear reasoning. My background emphasizes understanding diverse viewpoints, favoring arguments presented clearly and without excessive jargon.

Preferences:

• Rate of Delivery: A pace that ensures understanding of the arguments.
• Use of Jargon: Minimal use, focusing on clarity.
• Note-taking: I track arguments and evidence, emphasizing argument substance.
• Argument vs. Style: Substance over style, but clear and effective communication enhances the persuasiveness of arguments.
• Criteria for Assessment: I consider the strength of arguments, evidence presented, the relevance to the topic, and the ability to engage with the opposing side's points.
• In-Round Conduct: Expect respectful and civil engagement, with a focus on the quality of debate over theatrics.

Feedback: I aim to provide constructive feedback that encourages improvement and deeper understanding of the debated issues.

Professional Development: I seek insights from the debate community to enhance my judging capabilities.

Middle School Debate Coaching Experience/No High School

I am a parent Judge.

Yes email chain: jjkamau897@gmail.com Lay Judge

I'm a proud African pursuing a BSc. IBA with a diploma in psychology. As an open minded, free thinking individual, I find debates especially riveting. From time to time I participate in national and regional circuits though I prefer to be in the judges' seats exploring and absorbing the speakers claims.

My grading criteria is as defined;

1. Organization and clarity: The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. It is important not to lose your train of thought as this soon becomes lack of clarity. Use simple words and statements to get your points across. Big words sound clever but they can make you incomprehensible, lets keep it simple and clear.

2. Truth of claim : Are your points strong and persuasive? You must justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of “proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it a convincing argument.

3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal: Identify weakness in the competing team’s arguments and be able to bullet proof your own claim. Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. There may be misinterpretations or the points may also be unimportant or irrelevant. Teammates may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects if one has proper grasp of the other team's perspective.

4. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. Some debaters develop an excessively rapid style of delivery that interferes with the element of communication that is basic to debate. All features of presentation must be used convincingly.

5. Team dynamic and respect : "Manners maketh man". In the spirit of debate, we must ensure we refrain from use of derogatory or discriminatory terms, statements or arguments. Profanity and vulgar words only reveal the team's weakness in argument. Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word that is good for edification according to the need of the moment.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Yes email chain:kiharakimani61@gmail.com

About me:

I am a proud Kenyan who grew up arguing over anything and everything until I discovered debate and the amazing and diverse individuals within it. I have been participating in, judging, and training debates for the last 3 years. Away from that, I alongside my debate club committee have organized a number of tournaments over the years. I am widely experienced in different formats of debates across different circuits in the world. I enjoy free thinkers, adaptable minds, and a keen sense of detail, and all this for me is part of the characteristics needed to be a good debater. Finally, I love dogs, and that about sums it up.

Judging Rubric :

1. Clarity: At this point what I want you to tell me is what the debate is about, and in doing so provide strong reasons and evidence as well as what your claim should be evaluated on. For example, it would help a lot if you could compile a short history of facts, characteristics, and effects of the subject in matter or create a probable future in regards to calculated eventualities from your claims.

2. Mechanization: This for me is how well you arrange your points to fully bring out your case with enough matter to stand against the opponent's case as well as proving a good basis as to why your case stands out over all others. I consider team dynamic as part of this in that, a well-worked-out presentation from you and your partner should incorporate a united front with no contradiction, as well as strong supportive extensions that solidify your case in addition to tearing down your opponents.

3. Weighing: The most important thing at this point is to completely prove the other team wrong, most responses in debates only mitigate the other team's arguments rather than prove their whole case wrong. This can be avoided by simply taking down your opponent's case through either doing of the two. First, supporting your own case, or secondly, exposing the opponents' case or claim. Both of these factors share similar metrics in regards to how you present the case. For example, If You can show how the opponent's best-case scenario is flawed through metrics (such as a case of urgency, what affects more people etc.) and provide reasonable evidence as to why there is a high likelihood of conviction from me. You can as well defend your own claim by showing how your average to the worst point is better than the opponent's best point and with proper metrics with evidence solidify your cases (Remember you can you two or more metrics co-dependently to enforce your case that be careful to emphasize on the correlation).

4. Engagement: At this point, I will be looking out for how well you are able to respond and object to your opponent, I want to see a clear confrontation between both sides. That said, no watering down of opponent points without reasonable claims or completely assuming the other side, in short, I want you to address the other team's case wholesomely.

5. Structure: I honestly think that if the first 4 criteria are met the structure naturally follows, in light of this just make sure to keep it simple but detailed, make sure that all participants can clearly understand you and you'd be in my good books. If you had an outline of your presentation that would definitely bump it up a notch.

6. Conduct: Simply put, we are all here to learn, grow and empower each other, and with that said I will not be taking any slander at all in regards to ethnicity, culture, sexuality, or stereotypes. You shall respect your fellow participants and any violation of this will result in repercussions and a report to the organizers. With that cleared up, my number 1 rule is, 'Take a breathe and let's have fun with it.'

I am a lay judge.

Please speak clearly and don't use a lot of debate jargon.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

About me

4 years policy debate Rufus King Highschool

3 years student congress Rufus King Highschool

3 Central Michigan University NFA-LD debate team

General things

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to argument

i'm good with speed, spreading

put me on the email chain asiakaye12@gmail.com

always give a ROB I will not do work for you tell me how I should be voting never drop framework even if you meet under your opponents framework say that.

tech over truth

keep flows clean, always give a rode map

use all your time for speeches and cx

Aff stuff

make sure you know your AFF love K aff's i'm very familiar with critical aff's you have to win your affirmative case to win the round. know the warrants in the 1ac you should know your case. judges can tell if you don't understand or passionate about your case I like all affs not against arguments. don't drop your aff make sure in each speech your giving warrants tell me how I should frame the round

Neg stuff

kritiks

love love kritiks ran them a lot in high school don't assume I know what your talking about don't leave me doing work for you at the end of the debate, the impact, alt, the link should be clear during your speech. the alt needs to be explained and compared to the world of the affirmative give evidence on why the alt solves better than the aff case. make sure the link chain is clear and you give a ROB

Topicality

Don't really like topicality I feel debate would be more useful talking about important topics not arguing on the rules of debate. will still vote on it if its dropped and extended

Counterplans

neg needs to prove the counterplan solves the case better than the aff plan. you should always have a net ben

PF

make sure to keep the flow clean and answer each argument, make sure to use your evidence and make it clear to the judge where the evidence is getting pulled from.

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

I'm a parent judge.

Background: I have been judging and training for the past five and a half years. I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Computer Science as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating, eating, and traveling.

Judging criteria:

1. Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which, in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate.

2. Mechanizations: It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counterclaim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate. So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining why it's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having your claim tag along with mechanization.

3. Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing You can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people, has long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.

4. Structure: It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having a clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes it easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow (carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.

5. Synergy: How you and your partner build your case is important. This is done by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner. Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speech.

Lastly, respect your opponents. During the debate, do not use any derogatory or insulting language. I encourage you to use your imagination and have fun while learning and engaging with new individuals in the world of debate. Best wishes!

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

If you are interested in debating at Georgetown or attending Georgetown camp, feel free to reach out!

TOC Update: I have done a moderate amount of topic research and have judged 26 rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. Explaining acronyms and highly niche things would still be incredibly helpful.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

Public Forum Paradigm:

I occasionally judge middle school PF rounds for Holy Trinity, where I am an assistant coach. Although I am a college policy debater, I do not think public forum should be a speed contest or obscure critiques/counterplans should be the focus of the debate. I will not be receptive to teams running these arguments as "cheap shots," especially in middle school.

The three things I care about the most for public forum debates are:

1. Answering your opponents arguments in an organized fashion. I love when debaters specifically reference arguments by labels, (ie: "their biodiversity argument") and then respond to that argument where they reference it. It makes it easier for me to decide the debate. Jumping around different arguments or disorganized speeches make it harder for me to decide.

2. Making strategic choices and doing impact calculus. In final speeches, I think there are little to no circumstances where debaters should be extending multiple contentions/arguments. Public forum speech times are very limited, so it's best to focus on the strongest argument you are winning and play defense to your opponent's stuff. Explain why your impact or argument is more important and why it matters.

3. Paying attention/flowing. Taking notes of what your opponent is saying and paying attention to what arguments they did or did not make are all important. I like it when debaters point out mistakes or what opponents said in prior speeches, because it shows me they're paying attention.

Have fun! Debate is a competition but it's also a fun activity that allows you to learn new things and make friends.