Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years
• 2x NDT qualifier
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag. Lastly, I hate tricks and will vote you down if that's what you go for.

Hello There! If you are reading this page before the round I would ask that you please adhere to the things I have listed below. As a former debater I am familiar with most events (with a couple of exceptions) so if you are not respectful of the rules for the event or for your fellow competitors you will be downranked. Also - I do not discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I employ a zero tolerance policy for discriminatory and/or disparaging conduct. Such language or actions will result in a ranking of last and a note on your ballot. I will sort my paradigms by event below starting with Interp/Speech events.

Interp/Speech:

Default time signals are 3 down & fist. Just have fun and be yourself!

Extemp:

This is simple - Follow the Unified Analysis Format and you will be fine!

LD/PF:

I prefer traditional debate, so please follow the traditional debate structure. Don't cut off your opponents during questioning (unless they're rambling.) Give them an opportunity to answer the question. I generally don't flow questioning, so bring up the point in your speech. Please go a little slower during your speeches. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear." If I can't understand you after that, I won't be able to flow the rest of your speech.

Congress:

A disclaimer - I was a two-time national qualifier in Congress, so I know this event very well. Watch where in the round you place your speeches. If you are rebutting an argument in your speech, make sure you also introduce a new argument. Just rehashing old arguments does not contribute meaningfully to the debate. I give POs a fair bit of leeway to run things, but if you're egregiously breaking the rules or the chamber is in chaos, that will reflect poorly on you.

In closing, I judge fairly based on the merits of everyone's performance. If you have any questions for me don't hesitate to ask.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

Public Forum:

I debated PF 4 years in high school. I have judged for PF for the past 3-4 years.

Round procedure:

Try not to spread. Your points are important and it is crucial that I catch what you are saying.

Address dropped arguments throughout the round.

Make sure you use authentic evidence because I will call for cards.

Stand for speeches, but what you do for cross is up to you.

Make sure you signpost.

Speaker points:

In addition to being able to carry out arguments, I will weigh in confidence, projection, ability to remain assertive and not become aggressive or hostile.

Respect is super important in a round. DO NOT cut off your opponent. While I do not flow cross, it can play a role in the speaker points.

I am a new judge, I have read a little bit about the topic in which you are debating today. As a new judge, please no spreading, weigh your impacts, and time yourself. 

I am a new judge with very little debate experience. Please time speeches and keep up with prep time. No fast talking. I like to see well-developed arguments that engage the opponent. Don’t assume I am an expert on the topic; it’s public forum. I am more interested in how you debate evidence in speeches than reading anything after the round. Funny is good but be kind to one another!

Hello! My name is Mason Edwards. I went to Saint James School and was a former student of Dr. Ian Turnipseed. I did Public Form, extemporaneous speaking, impromptu, informative speaking, and congress in high school.

I’m gonna take notes from the debate. I like convincing arguments, clear rebuttals, and engaged delivery. The debater that does the best job of connecting with me, the judge, will probably win.

Have a good attitude, be respectful, and have fun!

My name is Matt Ferguson. I currently teach psychology and two film studies classes at Mountain Broook High School and for many I taught US History and a Government course. I have judged several tournaments in the past. Events included public forum, and several speech events.

Hello, I’m Cal Floyd, first off, thanks for reading the paradigm, I’m just going to lay down some basic expectations/preferences for the debates

-I consider myself an experienced debater/judge, do with that what you will

-I can flow at any speed, so speak at what is comfortable, although please do not spread unless you are confident in your dictation

-Please signpost

-In PF, I will attempt to primarily judge off of the last 2 sets of speeches, so bring up any points you really want me to know

-I will most likely know of any contentions you dropped, dropped contentions will not be considered

-No personal attacks and/or mudslinging, please be polite

-There is room for humor in debate, I wouldn’t mind a joke or two (might even help speaks)

-Do not be Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, etc

If you have any more questions feel free to ask

Hi everybody! My name is Blaire and I mainly competed in PF and OO but have some experience in Congress. I currently attend Auburn University and am getting a bachelor's in Public Relations.

For PF rounds, I like arguments that are clear and packed with evidence. I will not flow cross so if you want to use something said you'll need to bring it up later in round. I will, however, take note of disrespect or aggressive communication at any point in round. The loudest/most aggressive team isn't guaranteed the win. As someone who has competed at NSDA Nationals 2023 in a speech event (OO), I appreciate good public speaking skills. I am anti-spreading. If I can not hear you clearly it doesn't matter how good your argument is. Confidence is key, if you believe you then I'll believe you. I'm not going to cut you off if you go over time but I will stop flowing and I won't take anything said after the timer ends into consideration for the win. I ask that y'all not interrupt the person speaking if they go over time. Do not bring up anything new in Final Focus, it will not be flowed. Don't waste precious time on something I can not flow, you only have two minutes. Don't forget to weigh in summary!!!

For Speech events, clarity is key. I love topics that are creative and unexpected. Passion is an important component and if I can tell you don't really care about what you're talking about it won't land as well as it could. Best advice I can offer for speech is to not overthink it, speak enthusiastically and be well-informed and you'll do just fine. If you mess up DON'T STOP! I'll only be able to tell if you let me. Just keep going.

For Congress, be articulate and professional. Please do not be aggressive towards other congressmen. PLEASE be aware of the procedure and rules of Congress before arriving.

If you have any questions for me please don't hesitate to ask! Good luck!

Hello! My name is Alison Hyde, and I am newer to judging debate. Please treat me like a lay judge, and help make it as easy as possible for me to cast my ballot. I am a judge who will be voting off of my flow. With that said...

My preferences:

1. Please don't spread/talk super fast- as a flow judge it makes it harder for me to catch all the great arguments that are made in the round.
2. I don't have much experience with progressive argumentation or theory, so if you do run it, please explain it well and make it an important voting issue in the round.
3. Debate lingo- I understand basic debate terms, but outside of that if you say some new term for debate the likelihood that I won't understand it is high.
4. Please include off-time roadmaps before your speeches- it helps me to keep my flows organized.
5. Please speak clearly and explain your arguments well- I usually like to give high speaks.

Looking forward to a great round!

** If you have any questions regarding my paradigm, please ask me before the round begins.

Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is cmj0068@auburn.edu

Notes:

I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.

Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.

Keep your own time

I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash

Make sure case is organized and well formatted 

Have clear tags and contentions 

make sure you are going line by line 

talking fast is fine as long as things are pronounced properly and I can hear you 

absolutely no spreading

I’m looking for how well you can defend your argument 

I Don’t prefer spreading, but as long as you’re clear and understandable then it’s perfect.
Don’t be rude, it’s not great. Although, aggression during cross is fun, given it is not rude.

I care about format so organize your cases.

If a point is not responded to then I will consider it dropped. Impacts. Those are important. Make or break kinda stuff.

No matter how bad your case is, make me believe it’s worth voting for.

Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.

Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it

Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to

Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow

Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round

Keep your own time (prep, speeches)

Have fun! :)

tech>truth: debate is a game

the best way to my ballot is to weigh. weighing is inherently comparative, warrant your weighing and compare impacts/links to each other

run whatever you want; but the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you will have to explain it to me

any speed is good, just be clear

don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap

for the love of god, give me warrants

please signpost; if I look lost, I probably am

i don’t pay attention to cross; if something important happens, then bring it up in your following speech

do not extend the entire flow

frontline responses

defense is sticky

i vote neg on presumption

if you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary

if we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online

add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Junior Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT 2022 and 2023) and head coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to avoid intervention and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!

INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tjriggs03@gmail.com

Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - Trad

3 - K's

4 - Dense Phil

Strike - Tricks

Preferences (LD):

Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.

Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.

Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)

Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.

CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you (NOTE: New affs probably justify infinite condo).

Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.

Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.

Preferences (Public Forum):

Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.

Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.

Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.

Speech Preferences:

Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.

Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.

If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at tjriggs03@gmail.com

hello, i'm Alexia! i go to Auburn High School and this is my 2nd year debating.

i'm usually pretty chill and jokes are appreciated :) just don't do anything hurtful and please be respectful to everyone in the room!

criteria:

• i vote based off my flow, if i do not see you pull your impact(s) all the way through, i will likely discount it.
• speaker points:i will not tolerate bigotry; if i hear any belittling of opponents and/or other people, i will dock your speaks to a 25 or below. be nice during cross, don't be too aggressive, but still be assertive. please speak clearly and loudly-if i cannot hear it, i will not flow it! be confident!
• weighing: weigh and do it clearly. tell me why you won. i will likely vote based off weighing, so this is very important. weigh and do it effectively!!
• time: please keep your time! i will also keep time, but i will not do it for you. keep time for speeches and prep and tell me how much prep you've used. if you go 10secs over time during a speech, i will tell you to stop and i won't flow anything you say over time, even if you get a 10sec leeway. use up all your time as well!
• lastly, remember to have fun when debating! don't be too disheartened if you've lost a round, i promise it's not the end of the world! just have as much fun as you can!! :))

here's my email if you have any questions: ahrgcr107@gmail.com

my insta too if you have questions: @alexia._jade_

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

The basics: I’m a former debater. I primarily competed in policy throughout high school, (although I have done LD, PF, Congress, and Improv). I graduated HS in 2013, and did Model UN in college. As such, I am familiar with the basics of each format, and can understand spreading, but I am not coming into the round with an in-depth knowledge base or set of preconceptions about the topic.

I am open to any form of argumentation. It is the job of both sides within the confines of the round to give me a paradigm by which to evaluate them, and to explain how/why they prevail within that paradigm.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before we begin.

Give roadmaps before each speech

I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.

I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.

I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Hey guys,

My name is Kayla, I'm a sophomore at Auburn University majoring in Law and Justice and marketing. I did PF debate for about 2 years throughout high school and will be continuing in college.

PF debate:

As for my judging, I like to think I'm not too strict. Just do not spread; speak clearly and loudly, be organized. Please make sure you have a reliable source for your information and make sure to state it when you are speaking. I do not write down anything from cross unless it is mentioned in summary or in rebuttal. Remember not to bring in new information in final focus. I will be timing as well, but just to be safe I would recommend you keep track of your own time. I also like provide feedback at the end of the debate, everything I say will be typed out on the ballots if you would like to refer to some notes. Finally, use all of your time, even if you're just dragging onto what you already said. I look forward to meeting you guys, and goodluck (: !

I'm not a very technical judge so I will be basing my decision on the following

• No spreading-- Maintain a good pace, volume, and eye-contact
• No bringing up new information in the final summaries
• I will look at content on the topic-- but not too closely
• Please keep track of your time-- I will also be timing you but please the maintain appropriate times
• I will not be looking too closely at cross-fire unless it is brought up again in your speech
• Please maintain a friendly attitude towards each other
• I will be looking very closely at impacts and how they are carried on throughout the round
• Just relax and have fun!!

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.