Use debate@student.quarrylane.org and title the email chain adequately.

T/L

Been in debate for 4 years.

Don't have all that many hardcore preferences that aren't resolved by better debating.

Case Debate

Good case debate will especially get you good speaks---especially applicable to 2AC case debating; 'not reading new cards bc 2ac messed up' are words you should not want to hear.

DA

Implicate how different parts of the da interact with the advantage, how much of each par the da you need to win --- is any risk of a da sufficient given a solvent cp? Does turns case make any risk of a link sufficient? does dropped link mean that probabilistic uniqueness is irrelevant?

CP

Just like above; contextualize to what extent you need to win a net benefit in comparison to a solvency deficit.

Not great for textual plus functional as an interp. Better for function alone. Alright for textual alone.

Permutation do the counterplan > intrinsic perm

As a fellow 2A, I'll be sympathetic to theory, and think it's less arbitrary than most.

Lack of solvency advocate certainly justifies new 1AR answers.

T

My second favorite type of debate.

Impact calculus is key.

Aff vs K

Good link/link turns case, contextualized alt solvency to the 1AC, and case debating seem the optimal way to do it if this is your strategy.

Framework typically decides these debates so developing diverse offense for the neg would be the way to go; I'll be technical in determining and won't "It was a wash" my way out of it.

Neg vs K

Pick fairness or clash early on so you can develop offense; having both often conflict with one another, i.e going for the 'this ballot doesn't spill out; neg on presumption' 'debate doesn't change subjectivity' in tandem with 'voting neg iteratively spills up to models of debate as the community changes' seem to clash with one another; I think that negs need a mechanism of spilling out if going for models. This means starting the question of what my ballot does early, and being definitve about it.

TVA/SSD are great ways to mitigate AFF exclusion offense and thus should be well-developed; a good 1NR on TVA with solvency debating, impact calculus, puts a lot of pressure on the 1AR.

NOVICE / JV / MS

Make sure I can hear every word you're saying. this is a time to be getting better, and improving so demonstrate you've put in the slightest of effort.

I've judged these and it usually comes down to impact calculus, line by line, or resolving so if you've done all three well your speaks start at 29.

Misc

I only start flowing from the 1NC on case.

I won't look at docs unless a piece of evidence is explicitly disputed/brought up in a final rebuttal.

Number plz.

FR is NEG biased.

SPEAKS scale(stolen):

- Above 29.5: I will spend tonight crying about how beautifully you debated

- 29.5: I will tell my friends about you

- 29 – 29.5: You should get a top 5 speaker award

- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break

- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches

- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors

- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors

- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team

- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6

- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are

- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive

quarry lane '26

any pronouns

athenasiyang@gmail.com

qlspolicy@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

top level

tech > truth; i will judge off the flow and intervene as little as possible. do whatever it takes to win. flesh out your arguments in the rebuttals. compare evidence. give judge instruction.

speed is fine. clarity is better. slow down on analytics and tags. something i've been told is to put a decently chunky card at the top of your 2ac blocks to give the judge pen time.

explanation is more important to me than evidence, and i will only go back to read ev if necessary.

don't insert evidence; i will only evaluate it if you read it.

smart cx questions are deadly and will be rewarded.

be respectful and have fun :)

theory

voting issues are typically a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

not the greatest judge for condo/theory in general, but if you choose to extend it, explain it well and do good impact calculus. i'll assume dispo means you can kick the cp if the aff reads perms or theory unless you define it otherwise.

efficient condo extensions in the 1ar are lovely.

don't read hidden aspec/theory.

t

i default to competing interpretations. have a lot of evidence and make sure you're comparing evidence quality.

reasonability is convincing against contrived t violations, but i'm not great at evaluating it. we meet is a yes/no question. caselists are very helpful.

k

haven't dug very deep into k literature. i'm better for more common/straightforward k's (cap, security, setcol), but better explanation overcomes most barriers.

i am agnostic on framework, but i'm sympathetic towards 2ar recontextualizations bc 1ars on fw are painful. i am especially sympathetic to 1ar args when the block is sloppy on line-by-line and makes vague cross-apps from the overview.

the link debate is super important -- be specific to the aff and explain why the two worlds are incompatible. "whoever talks about the aff more in a kritik round usually wins."

alt explanation is so crucial too -- what does the alt actually do? if the alt can solve a majority of the aff, that lowers the threshold for the link soooo much. root cause explanation also helps a ton.

cp

case-specific and advantage counterplans are really fun. i prefer functionally competitive cps with solvency advocates, but do whatever it takes to win.

i'm neutral on cp theory, but if the cp has good solvency advocates, i err neg. smart perms will be rewarded.

give instructions for sufficiency framing and judge kick. i default to no judge kick.

presumption flips aff if you go for a world, but i can be persuaded by "less change" or "neg flex" means presumption is neg warranting.

da

impact calc is great. turns case analysis is super important, but don't overdo it because it's largely irrelevant if you lose the rest of the da. explain perception/timeframe differentials and why they matter.

k affs

very fascinating. t-usfg, cap k, and piks make the most sense to me.

i prefer clash as an impact to t, but choose wisely based on the aff and their strat. smart tvas access and mitigate the aff's offense and helps 2nr analysis so much.

misc

post-round me! i think it's really educational.

don't steal prep. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.

if you find an ethics violation pre-round, please tell your opponents. treating it like an in-round strategy is a terrible model for debate.

see the paradigms of christopher thiele,yao yao chen,and eleanor barrett for more details.

QLS '25

Tech > Truth

Please name the email chain as follows: [Tournament name] [Round #] - [AFF team code] vs. [NEG team code]

For novice:

please do line by line, be respectful to each other, and have fun.

Topicality

Offense/defense. Impacting your standard is very important. Choose the standard you are winning and weigh them against the ones you are losing.

Card quality matters the most. Ideally, they should be in the context of the resolution or at least close to it.

Counterplan

If your CP is complicated, make sure you clearly explain the mechanism somewhere.

substance > competition > theory

I will vote on intrinsic or severance perms, but there will be a higher threshold requiring you to win theory (either justifying the perm through illegit CP or claiming you are not intrinsic or severance)

Condo good/bad is up to debate. Numerical interpretations do make sense.

Theories other than condo (and disclosure maybe) is usually a reason to reject argument not the team.

My default is no judge kick, but can be persuaded otherwise by clearly state so in both 2NC and 2NR, and AFF can contest this.

Disad

Turns case argument is very important.

A story/spin is usually more strategic than a dozen of cards that says the same thing.

Kritik

AFF needs to utilize the case, NEG needs to apply the links to the AFF. The one talks more about the case usually wins the debate.

Not great for framework, better for substance. You probably need an alt.

• I will not find a middle ground in framework, but feel free to advocate for one.

K tricks are cool (eg. floating piks, root cause, etc.)

T-USFG

If both sides debated equally, I lean neg. It would be sad if you decided to spread your block without doing specific line-by-line.

Fairness is both a terminal impact and internal link.

AFF should go for impact turn if you clearly don't meet.

I don't think you necessarily have to answer case in the 2NR to win. T is a procedural so it comes before case. However, sometimes winning case defense can resolve aff's offense on T.

K-Affs

I don't think it is different with "policy" debate; in fact, I think it is more fun to watch because the ideological clash is deeper than that a policy vs. policy debate can offer.

I will prefer those critique the resolution or have some relationship with the rez.

If you are simply taking your K and retagging it to make it a K-aff, it is very annoying.

I will vote on presumption. It is under utilized.

Misc.

Preferably slow down a bit on tag for me to get pen time.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as it is in their cards. If it is before/after where their cards start/end, you have to read it.

CX is binding, but if your opponent concedes something, say that in the next speech.

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

About me

KU '25. I debate in college. Currently coach the Quarry Lane School. Previously coached Lawrence Free State ('22-23) and the Ascent Academy.

jspiersdebate@gmail.com

Most Important

I think I am equally good for policy and critical debates - which is reflected in judging history. I vote on the words that are on my flow. The implication of tech>truth is that I can't write out arguments no matter how much I disagree with them, so much to my dismay I will be judging hidden aspec 'til the end of time. I judge based on the relative risk of positions unless given an alternative impact frame.

Bad for "they said something else in another debate and should lose," and for "my opponent is bad for interpersonal reasons." Don't care about falsifiability, I think the first contravenes the nature of debate (switching sides inev) and the second is just awkward to be in (wins and losses aren't good for conflict mediation).

I don't read docs after the 1NC until a card doc is sent, I don't fill in gaps if they're your fault and not mine, and I really like numbering. I flow on computer, I type rather fast, and I used to line everything up, but realized the sisyphean nature of this task and it doesn't really change my decision.

Clarity is a substantive constraint. If I do not understand the functional utility of the arguments you're making while I am flowing (or at least based off of the words I have on my flow) it is unlikely that my decision from reading the cards is going to dramatically shift that functional understanding. Ex. if you are extending like a turns case argument on one part of a DA as a uniqueness argument for a part of a case turn and you don't say that I'm likely just going to be confused and not going to psychoanalyze your decision and instead try to simplify as much as possible.

Burden of proof precedes burden of rejoinder- making an incomplete argument justifies blowing it off/ new answers when the argument is complete (this also applies to recontextualizations that dramatically shift understanding, revealing unclear tricks, etc...) If you're worried that forcing your opponents to play minesweeper with bad args is going to lose to truthy args, make the better and complete one earlier. If "late-breaking debates favor aff" is true (which it is), wouldn't it be best to vertically proliferate ASAP?

Reasonability will take an above average amount of explanation to make sense as a method to evaluate debates. It is far more likely that you beat T or any other theory argument by assuming that competing interps is true rather than going for reasonability. I think this way because the justification for reasonability is often question begging for me. How can I determine that an interp is "sufficient" or "good enough" if not comparative to another interp? I think you are better served to make the argument "their interp is arbitrary/unpredictable" as an offensive reason to prefer instead of an impact framing argument. In general I think of these args as limits/ground multipliers in the scope of fairness objections - i.e. a "predictable" interp multiplies limits by a really low number (think .1) while an unpredictable interp multiples by a really high number (think >20) - this is how a "predictably unlimited" interp beats a limited and unpredictable interp because even if it kinda sucks it is more "fair" insofar as one can more closely assume that interp is true and prepare on that basis

Everything is or is not an impact - fairness, clash, fun, etc...

In a theory debate with no impact calculus:
---Neg on PICs
---Aff on Process (for perms)
---Predictability > everything else for T

You may think, paradigm is short - agreed, but find basically everything else has little utility in prefs. I like everyone else like debate that is more specific and deep, find debates over the topic enjoyable, and want to vote for the team who is nicer to their opponents.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Put me on the chain: quarrylaneyy@gmail.com AND debate@student.quarrylane.org

tech > truth

Hi, I'm Sam, a Junior at the Quarry Lane School. I've done PF debate for the past 5 years and I dabbled in Policy earlier this year.

Tech > Truth

I will be able to give a decent decision in Case/DA debates but will need more judge instruction with T, K, and complex CPs debates.

Elizabeth Zhuge

Add me to the email chain: ezhuge12@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: I debated one year of public forum in 8th grade, policy 9th-current. I go to Quarry Lane.

------

General

Do not steal prep! Only typing when timer is running.

You should not be louder than the person giving the speech.

Tech > Truth; I will vote on arguments I don't believe in- will not vote for things like racism good, but will vote for things like warming good, anthro K, etc.

I will dock speaks if you're mean and it makes me less inclined to vote for you in a 50/50.

------

Policy

Speed: Please go slower or be clear. If I don't know what you're saying I won't flow it. Spreading through your analytics makes them unintelligible and they won't be on my flow.

Ts: I'm probably not good for this but will vote on it.

Ks: Fine.

CPs: Fine.

DAs: Fine.

K Affs: I'm probably not good for this. If you're running a K Aff I will need a lot of explanation.

Framework: Probably not unless you make it very clear.

Open cross is fine. If your partner is answering/asking all the questions during your cross it probably won't look good though.

Please do impact calc/framing!

High threshold for voting on condo but if they have a ridiculous amount of off-case will probably consider it and you probably get some new args.

Can be convinced either way on judge kick, if no instruction will default to no judge kick.

Dropped arguments still need to be explained for me to vote on them.

If you're hiding a bunch of theory arguments and waiting for your opponent to drop it and blow it up I will be sympathetic to new answers.

------

LD

No experience at all. I won't know LD specific arguments and I also don't know the topic. Will judge it like policy. Refer to policy section.

------

Public Forum

Not up to date on the topic. If you're running policy arguments in PF-style I will probably not be happy but if you run it on a policy level I might be more willing to vote for it.

------

I like plants.