Hi, my name is Korey, and I will be your judge today. Here are just a few clarifications on how I flow my rounds in order to give you the best chance to get my vote. No matter how I vote, if you give an honest effort and enjoy yourself, I will leave the round with a positive impression of you. Debate skills can always be improved, and I will do my best to help achieve that improvement.

LD:

Framework, framework, framework! This is what LD debate is. For me to vote, I must be voting under a framework in the round, and whichever side wins the framework debate is the side whose framework I will flow arguments under. This makes it important not just to prove why your framework should be preferred over your opponent, but also to prove that your case fulfills your opponent's framework as well. Arguments fulfill value criterion which measures value.

Voting Issues- somewhere in your final speech, you need to tell me specific points that you win that make me want to vote for you. These can be stated explicitly (best) or implicitly, but you must tell me reasons to vote for you. Remember, these have to be reasons that impact your framework (and possibly your opponent's framework.) Even if you prove that your case creates a massively positive impact, that impact needs to be relevant to the framework I am voting under to matter in the round.

Dropped arguments do matter, but they have to mean something for me to count them on my vote. If an argument is dropped, you need to call that out for me (I will not do it for you) and you must tell me what impact has been disregarded as a result of that. If this impact holds weight in the round, then it is a huge point for you, as long as everything else goes well. On the flip side of that, try your best not to drop any of your opponent's key arguments either, whether those be arguments they make in their case or rebuttals against yours. This doesn't mean you have to respond to every little piece of evidence put against you, but if it is a point that will hold relevance in the round, it needs to be responded to.

I like off-time roadmaps as well. Not super specific ones, but just something to give me a better introduction to start your speech than just starting your time. Example: "This will be a 4 minute affirmative rebuttal to my opponent. I will start by addressing my opponent's case and then defending my own if time allows."

I take notes on cross examinations, but I do not vote off of them unless you bring it up in a rebuttal. Anything said by your opponent in cross that you find incriminating must be explicitly called out in a speech.

Run whatever you'd like as far as progressive arguments go, but if you're talking almost exclusively in jargon and your opponent says they can't handle it, I'm going to flow as though you did not warrant any arguments. You should feel comfortable with your terminology to the point that you can explain it all. Don't say things you don't understand; that defeats the educational purpose of this activity.

I hope you have fun in this round and the whole tournament! I love LD, and I hope you do too and spend the time needed to get to a high level of success in this format.

PF:

All I really need here is for you to give me more impacts than your opponent. Obviously if one side has a really strong impact that is not responded to, then that outweighs 5 weak impacts that were all adequately responded to, but basically I am looking for whichever side proves to have a greater impact. Please be respectful to everyone in the round, and keep everything as organized as possible.

I will flow crossfire in PF, and I will count what you say in cross against you, but if it is something significant, an opponent should bring that up again in rebuttal to tell me the impact of what was discovered in crossfire. Also, please don't make Grand Cross a shouting match. It would be very entertaining for me, but it's not necessary in the name of respect.

Good luck everyone! Let me know in the round if there are any questions you have about this paradigm. Thanks!