For the duration of the LD debate round, I expect both competitors to respect and uphold the rules and regulations established by the WDCA. Should any competitor fail to comply with rules and regulations, the results will be an automatic loss for the round, and/or disqualification. Respectful consideration should also be taking during cross-examination and prep/ flex prep. Each competitor has the right to allow or decline sharing of analytics/ unique case blocking; however, the sharing of evidence is required per WDCA standards. Should any of the competitors refuse to answer their opponents questions, the result will be an automatic deduction in positional speaker marks.

The most important strategy to remember; voters in the rebuttal is a vote for all mankind! Although standard impacts and observations may be compelling in the 1A, the affirmative must provide a value and criterion to insure strong voting and education within the round. Failure to extend or address any established framework throughout the rebuttal is a high-risk voter for both the affirming and negating competitor. Should either competitor provide a “burden”, supplement to the framework, I suggest they account for the extra baggage before exiting the rebuttal (i.e.: if you are losing to a burden that either you or your opponent establishes, don't be afraid to admit defeat and learn to kick non-unique arguments. Your position just might survive with a clear weight of impacts. Competitors are allowed to share (encompass) the same value or criterion. The wash reverts to weighted impacts in the RFD.

It would be a shame not to end all arguments in extinction. With that being said, uniqueness/ links/ warrants to impacts are the cherries on top of the RFD. Impacts should have clear relevance to the value and criterion. An Impact turn makes me want to do a happy dance; favorably considered within the RFD. All negative competitors beware! Refusing to address the affirmative in any way, even by part of establishing a progressive counter/ alternative, IS LAME!! “Best for education” arguments are a time suck, and the RFD will likely flow affirmative.

In a nutshell… voter gooooood! Debating the affirmative gooooood! Become the cherry. Be the cherry.

I have been a student debater primarily in Policy debate at Bradley Tech High School, with a few debates under my belt in Public Forum Debate as well. I have judged Policy as well as Public Forum, and primarily Lincoln Douglas Debate for the last 5 years on the Wisconsin Circuit and once at the Glenbrooks.

SPEED:Not a fan of speed, as debaters tend to get very inarticulate when trying to spread other debaters.

FRAMEWORK:I put a lot of weight on framework debates. This is a big voter for me.

KRTIKS: Not much of a fan mostly due to the fact that most debaters can't fully explain one in the short amount of time allotted. Run at your own peril or if you can explain and convince me fully to pick up up on one.

COUNTER PLANS:I usually like to hear counterplans, as long as they have structure and can be explained well to convince me to vote on it.

THEORY: I can listen to it, but most of the time, it won't be enough to guarantee a win, UNLESS you are very convincing in it, AND that is all you have for a particular argument.

DISADVANTAGES: See impacts.

IMPACTS: VERY IMPORTANT! WEIGH...THE ...ROUND!!! Give me voters and extend your impacts please. In the end, that is what will convince me to give you the win.

DELIVERY AND POLITENESS: Have a clear delivery, with lots of clash, and be very polite. I did not like rudeness when I was debating; won't tolerate it now when I am judging. Not a fan of flex prep, where cross ex continues during another person's prep time.

After the round, I can give oral critiques, BUT I DO NOT DISCLOSE! I feel the debaters will follow the comments more if they are not distracted by the win or loss disclosure.

Any other questions, just ask me before the round.

I look forward to judging some awesome debates.

Experience: LD debater in high school, with some experience in forensics, PF, and Congress. 5 previous years of experience judging LD/PF. One year head coach at Whitefish Bay. Just... tons of judging and lots of informal coaching.

Background: studied philosophy and English in college. Former Certified Peer Specialist for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, training in related areas including extensive continuing education at levels required to maintain professional counseling certification. Suicide prevention educator, mental health and disability rights professional and activist. Additional experience in Library policy and UW shared governance. Formerly a waitress. I’ve done everything. My life is informed by being a bilesbian, disabled, mentally ill, neurodivergent genderqueer femme anarchist. Any marginalization of a disadvantaged group of people will probably not weigh in your favor. I currently work in a variety of fields on the bird app and I work pro bono except in cases where I am being used or abused. I accept donations in all forms. #MutualAid Labor Organizer with the IWW in IU690. Schizoaffective and ADHD + atypical autism and unspecified personality disorder; flashbacks, panic attacks, eating disorder, history of self injury in active long-term recovery. Vasovagal Syncope and occasional seizures under control. I am Fat and I am More than Fine with that. I am an activist and a terminally online support figure, but I film cops in the streets.

Spread/progressive argumentation: fine by me, but not a substitute for the fundamentals of LD, and generally does not belong anywhere near PF, unless adapted to fit the values of clarity and decorum that are paramount in that division. If you are in LD, this means you must still give me a value structure/ethical premise, even if it is framed in a non traditional manner. Spread and progressive argumentation do not inherently impress me, and do not impact whether or not you win a round. That said, I can probably listen faster than you can speak, and I can definitely follow use of policy terms in-round. I do prefer that you clearly emphasize taglines for arguments, and I place a high premium on enunciation of words. I believe you can and should show the rise and fall of sentences and arguments, even when speaking at a high WPM. If your spread is incomprehensible, overly monotone, or does not show appropriate emphasis of key words, you shouldn’t be spreading, although this isn’t a dealbreaker.

Style/decorum: don’t be a jerk. I will dock your speaker points heavily or drop you in extreme cases if you are not respectful of your opponent. If you are an experienced debater against a novice, you MUST adjust your style, speed, and argumentation accordingly so that your opponent can clearly understand all arguments you make. Debate needs to be welcoming to learners at all levels, and I won’t stand for intimidation or degradation of new debaters. If you’ve learned the skills to debate well, you shouldn’t need to use any gross tactics to win a round against a novice debater. However, I do not care if you sit or stand to speak, and I’m not a judge who prioritizes forensics skills over the actual arguments made in the round. Things like eye contact and posture will have zero impact on the ballot, nor will clothes or cosmetic aspects of speech.

Paradigm: tabula rasa basically. I am open to any and all arguments except for blatantly bigoted ones. That means don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, or anything else gross. This has historically only been an issue on certain PF topics. You ARE more than welcome to make argumentation about issues of prejudice and oppression, and I find impacts that combat oppression to be at least as convincing as policy-making impacts.

Voters: MAKE SURE TO GIVE ME VOTERS!!! I want to know what the debaters think is important in the round, rather than deciding for myself. If you don’t tell me, I will have to decide what I think is important, and that might be completely different from what you thought was important. You don’t want me to have to do that.

Flow: make sure to clearly flow all arguments, and if you drop an argument, tell me that you’re dropping it, and why, even if that reason is just that you don’t think it’s worth spending time on. If you cold drop an argument, I will assume you didn’t understand it or forgot about it, and your opponent might easily win off of it if they pull it through the round. Crystallize in your final speeches, and tell me why things matter. Additionally, DO NOT assume I will intuit the impacts of your arguments for you. I am not a mind reader, and even if I have picked up on the impacts, they don’t matter unless I know why you think they matter.

Clash: this is not competing oratory, this is debate. You need to directly and explicitly interact with your opponent’s arguments. Again, I am not a mind reader, so I won’t cross-apply your arguments to those of your opponent for you.

PF: I’m really an LD judge, so I might be a wild card here. Make sure to show me why things matter, and feel free to interpret the resolution in new and interesting ways.

LD: This is first and foremost ethics debate, give me ethical structure and impacts. If you want to address policy/the real world, tell me why this is important to do on the resolution. We live in a world of ought, not is, and I will never prioritize logistics/pragmatism/statistics by default. Some resolutions need real-world policy, but you have to tell me why you think the resolution needs that. I am not a mind-reader.

I will give 15-second grace periods to finish an argument or answer to a question. Time yourselves, although I will also time you. Phones and computers may be used in round. If I am touching my phone or tablet, it is to refresh my timer or to enter info into an e-ballot. I am never texting in round except in the extreme case that there is a 911 text, in which case I will tell you immediately.

Be good to one another <3

I consider myself a biased tabs judge. I will vote on any arguments, but I tend to need a far more compelling story than dropped blip args before I'll vote on T and theory. Tell me what the in-round abuse is, paint me a picture of the ragged corpse of debate caused by voting for arguments of the kind your opponent is making, regale me with a description of the bitter tears of your mother when she contemplates the fact that conditional counterplans will continue in debate, whatever-just make it strong, believable, and give it impacts that demand immediate action on my part. In general, I'll default to "reject the arg not the team" without a quite good reason to do otherwise.

I'm happy to hear and vote on critiques, but I would ask you to actually do some critiquing when you run them By this I mean that the link flow is the most important flow on the K, and that it's easy to convince me that a well-explained link is applicable across the flow.  It also means that I don't buy that there is such a thing as the "risk of a link" to the K-either you are making well-warranted indictments of the plans underlying assumptions and representations or you are not.  Finally, it means that I don't default to the perm without genuine argumentation-if the neg is putting in genuine link work, the idea that the perm might somehow be a thing to default to strikes me as facially ludicrous.  For affs, this means that a robust challenge to the link and a careful delineation of exactly what your plan entails is an easy A strategy.

In general, I prize rounds involving debaters actually doing some real evidence and argument analysis, and that's probably an easy way to impress me as well. You're better off going for one very strong argument that you can support with detailed analysis than ten little positions and a lot of screaming about nuclear war. I'm rarely impressed by claims that one drop on a 20 point flow is necessarily round-decisive. Do your impact analysis, as well-within the limitations outlined above, I will weigh the round as the debaters tell me to.

I don't often call for ev unless it's questioned in the round or I think it's highly fishy. I am very willing to yell at you about dubious ev, and to drop you if I catch you with flat out lies or out of context cards. I'll make that judgment whether or not the other team brings it up, but I will only drop you on it absent a team challenge if I know for an absolute fact that your ev was cut out of context or has similar strong issues. Still, I read a lot, and may have seen your literature...

As far as speed goes, I'm fine with it, but probably not as good as some about hearing everything you do in a very fast round. If I'm starting to miss arguments or cards (and I try to flow your warrants as well as your cards), or if you start mumbling, I'll ask you to slow down or clear up, and I need you to respect that. If I ask you to do this a couple times, you're better off pretending I said that I insist on conversational speed.

I should not judge Brookfield East.

I have coached LD for about 35 years at West Bend East and, most recently, Brookfield East. I have had numerous national qualifiers, some who have broken to elimination rounds. This includes one national runner-up and 2 national semi finalists. I think I know what I'm doing.

Now for the stuff you really care about. Persuasive communication is key. I am not an information processor -- that's what the debaters are suppose to do. While I don't make my decisions based solely on speaking style, this is an important component of LD. You can't persuade me if you're busy gasping for air. You should also consider that it takes time to process arguments. If you go so fast as to make that difficult, it won't bode well for you.

Each debater has the responsibility to persuade me that the resolution is either true or false. I prefer this happen with a few well developed arguments rather than many underdeveloped ones. I do not vote based on quantity. Quality is much more important. While I think I keep a pretty good flow, line-by-line is not key for me. I prefer to think of LD as dueling oratories. Give me the details on two or three stellar points and leave the trivial for another debate. At the end of the negative rebuttal and the second affirmative rebuttal I expect to be given voters. Why should I prefer you to your opponent?

LD is values debate. Therefore, the value and value criterion are important. Debaters should show me how their value will be obtained through their criterion and then relate their case to that criterion. If a debater can show me that their opponent's criterion won't achieve the value or that their case better achieves the opponent's value, then the decision is easy. In rounds where there is no values debate, I have to look to the specific cases and which does a better job of defending their position on the resolution. While philosophy plays an important role in developing arguments, there must also be a practical side to the debate. 

While evidence isn't the be all and end all of LD, your arguments should be accompanied by warrants. Then give me an impact. Please weigh your arguments. Why is what you're telling me important to the round? If you don't, I have to do it for you and you might not like the results. Besides, I'm really lazy and don't want to have to work hard at doing what you should have done.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask.

put me on the email chain

kedrickstumbris@gmail.com

tldr: do whatever you want - I've judged and coached at nearly every level (Wisconsin locals to TOC elims) and will consider any argument presented. While I try to be a neutral adjudicator as much as possible, I certainly have some predispositions that I think are important for competitors to know. Those are below. This doesn't mean you should preclude yourself from reading any argument you prefer (an argument you know well that I don't like will always do better than an argument you don't know well that I do like), but my predispositions should probably affect the way you explain your arguments and how much detail you want to put into them. I truly do despise judge intervention; please resolve debates so that I don't have to intervene and get my predispositions involved in the round. If you think I'm doing too much work for either side, it's because I would've had to do more for you. Oftentimes what you perceive as "bad decisions" are actually your poor explanations.

if you have more specific questions while doing prefs - email me - I'm very responsive

if you have more specific questions during pre-round prep, I will answer when both competitors are in the room

predispositions to other things:

- I was a policy debater and my students are all util debaters. I think substantive engagement about the topic is a good thing. This doesn't preclude reading a K aff.

- Phil debates are boring. I don't enjoy judging them. Nobody ever explains what their buzzwords mean. You should probably have to defend implementation.

- I don't know why theory debaters keep me high on their pref sheet. I feel like I've made it clear that I think you're annoying and that doing research and engaging the topic is valuable. I'm probably not the judge to argue "spikes/theory key to small schools" shenanigans because my team proves that argument is heckin' wrong.

- Your CPs need net benefits. Your disads/advantages need uniqueness. Your aff needs an inherent barrier.

Speaker points- I have recently tried to adopt a more rigid speaker point scale based on data that reflects the average points speakers get at major national tournaments now. This point scale and its inception are discussed by Bill Batterman on his blog The 3NR. The scale is found below.

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

Speed – I haven’t been judging debate enough to keep up with my practice of listening to speed. I am sure after hearing a round or two I may be back to my coaching days. However, I would caution on the side of speaking slower than what you may be used to, so that I may ensure I follow the entirety of the debate. I understand the advantage of having multiple arguments on the flow. I would be more impressed with the way arguments are used within the round.

Arguments – All germane arguments are on the table.

Critical Arguments – When I listen to critical arguments I really appreciate if the tenets or the claims are threaded throughout the entire debate. This goes for both sides. Those who propose the critical argument should provide a general summation of the argument and then provide the important “pillars” of the idea. Those opposing the idea should consistently find time within their speeches to (re)iterate the “why” as to their winning their position.

Judge as Judicator – My intention is to try to remove all bias from my decision within the round. I try to maneuver in such a way that I examine what arguments were presented and how were the speakers “using” them to persuade me to either side. This means I try to create good flows. Clarity and an appropriate speed and volume are essential. As an educating activity FIRST, we must all work together to make the activity enjoyable for the simple fact of learning something new. Therefore, all EDUCATION voters will be a big thing for me in any theory debate. Furthermore, I would implore the speakers to use the founding principles of the movement of debate (i.e: extensions, cross-applications, direct clashes, etc.). I would even go so far as to ask that you blatantly use these words when you are performing the skill. This helps me “envision” the flow of the debate round with more clarity which will ensure a fairer decision.

Prep Time – I will keep my own time for the speeches and prep. My clock will be the primary clock referenced in round. Flashing a constructive will not be timed. Asking to see a specific card before your team’s speech will be timed when the piece of evidence is presented, or 30 seconds has elapsed. I do it this way to ensure fairness for both parties. If the opposition team is taking to long to find the card that was asked for after hearing it read, then they gave their opponents a free 30 seconds of prep time. Both teams are subject to this standard of accountability. This means cards should be called for at the top of the cross examination period by the questioner and the partner of the opposition should be searching for the request while cross-examination continues.

Tl;dr

• Strike me if you're a relatively inexperienced "circuit" debater who is trying to debate in a "circuit" style: i.e. spreading for its own sake, running theory because you haven't researched enough case material, etc. Pref me highly if you are not such a debater or if you come from a traditional circuit and expect to be debating a value and value criterion (by no means am I saying you must have those things). Pref me in the middle if you are an experienced debater who truly understands when using certain strategies is important and you're not just reading me what a coach/teammate told you to run.
• On spread--I can flow spread just fine; however, I don't like spread when it is used as a barrier for discourse. If you and your opponent are comfortable with spread (defined as 250 wpm or above) then go for it. Speak loudly and clearly and I'll be fine. If not, if your opponent can't flow spread, please do not spread. If your opponent can't respond to your arguments simply because you're speaking too fast then it is your fault, not hers. You won't lose the round for it but your speaker points will suffer.
• On arguments--run whatever you think is most effective. However, know that I don't really like Topicality as a response. I have judged an awful lot of debate and can count on two fingers how many arguments have truly been nontopical. Usually, T is run against arguments that debaters don't otherwise know how to respond to and I don't like that. You are welcome to tell me a nontopical argument is nontopical but please also engage the substance of the argument.
• On evidence--I believe this to be a community of integrity. There are individuals who will do shoddy things and we should discourage that but there are others who call falsification without proof as a strategy. Both are bad. THE MOMENT I HEAR "FALSIFICATION" THE ROUND STOPS. I evaluate the evidence and award a loss to the debater/team that was wrong. If you're calling clipping, calling falsification, etc, prove it. The burden of proof I'll use is not a steep one but it needs to show misrepresentation. I'm not encouraging falsification nor am I discouraging calling it; however, those are tall accusations and it is your burden to prove it.
• I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, or Dumbfoundead reference and I'll smile and be happy with you and might give you an extra speaker point.

The rest of this paradigm is a verbose discussion of my thoughts on the activity to which I've dedicated much of my life for the past eight years.

Background:
Assistant Coach of Forensics and Debate at Brookfield East High School. Previously coached at Whitefish Bay High School. Competed in Wisconsin and nationally in Congressional Debate and in Public Forum debate with Brookfield East (class of ’12). I have a bachelor's degree from Marquette University in Milwaukee, majoring in Political Science (concentration in public policy/political economy) and Economics (analysis in international trade, econometrics, and public finance/policy evaluation) with a minor in Spanish. I'm a nerd for the studies and empirical research. In real life, I run a restaurant and small investment firm with differentiated subsidiaries.

I judge almost every weekend from September through March and am well versed on the topic literature as I research and cut cards with my team. I coach PF and LD as well as Congressional Debate (and IE’s in the spring) so I read lots and lots of evidence.

Value/Criterion:
I'm extremely progressive on this topic. I feel that the debate is ultimately decided in the metaphysical realm and there are generally few empirics you can run strongly on the topic. Give me something to chew on here, more than usual. I think a lot of the debate is going to be framework and theory. I will accept Anti-values, Standards, et cetera, instead of a traditional V/VC structure. You can advocate a standard-less debate as well as long as you give me good theory to back it up.

Definitions Debate:
I will only vote on a definition if it goes dropped and really does redefine the debate in a way that I can only vote for one side. That being said, if you present me a really shady definition that defines it so that the Aff/Neg has no chance of winning the round and your opponent provides a legitimate and fair definition in response I, as a judge, am always going to favor the definition that provides equality to the grounds of both sides. This shouldn’t have to be said but I will always prefer a term of art definition to Webster’s even if the dictionary is the only card presented. I am a word nerd; please don't BS me in the definitions debate.

I generally don't like verbose discussions of framer's intent with resolutions. I'm intimately familiar with how these resolutions are actually written--don't try to run ridiculous things on these grounds.

Types of Arguments:
I will accept any type of argumentation you throw at me as long as it's well argued with warrants and impacts. You can kritik the resolution; read me poetry that helps me better understand the plight of the needy; K the opponents case or his language; run a narrative alternative; run a priori reasons to negate; or tell me my ballot is a tool and I should vote for you for some obscure yet well argued reason. I personally believe that good argument is good argument—if you give me reasons why it should be the voting issue in the round I will vote on it. That said, if you provide an argument that requires me to accept something completely non sequitur with reality, I will reject it. In other words, if you tell me I should affirm because there are only 49 states and that is a prime number, I won't vote on it because, well, there aren't and it’s not. Otherwise, I don't intervene.

I can follow complex philosophy pretty easily but you shouldn’t assume anything and take shortcuts here, as I’m nowhere near as proficient as I’d like to be. I love philosophy; I’ve read a lot on many subjects and can follow along with sound analysis; however, it's bad form to assume that your opponent will be familiar with your concepts. Debaters should generally subscribe to the ELI5 method. That is to say, if you can’t explain your argument to a five year old, you don’t fully understand the concepts yourself. I will vote on theory but please explain why voting on theory should trump case evaluation.

Extending arguments is important; however, telling me to "extend contention 2--it went cold conceded" is far less effective than summarizing the argument and presenting it as a round issue. Same goes with cards. "Extend the Coase analysis" is valid but less effective than explaining it to me again so I know why it's important.

I've developed a slight disdain for plans over time as they present an infinite research burden but will still vote on them.

Evidence:
People who say evidence doesn’t belong in LD are, for some reason, clinging to the archaic as a means to bring the activity towards where they think it should be rather than allowing it to grow organically. Use evidence if it's necessary for your argument. I’ll buy sound analysis over a shoddy card any day but you should back things up with research. My thoughts on this are developing over time as I watch more rounds. Really, I appreciate the debaters who make sound arguments that are based in analysis over those who rely on their evidence to analyze things--it shows a better understanding of the issues. However, reading me cards without analyzing them yourself is the equivalent of saying nothing. Signpost then analyze the evidence—tell me why I should care about what the author is saying—why does it impact the debate?

I’ve never had to ask for a card before but will if I have to. Don’t clip cards. This is a community of integrity—keep it that way. I generally won’t vote on cards; I vote on arguments. I don’t really care whether a Ph.D said it… if it’s sound, I’ll buy it and if it’s not, I won’t. To be clear, I expect more than regurgitation or carpet-bombing.

I need adequate citations. Name is usually enough if they’re not claiming anything weird but sometimes it’s best to hear a few words on the credentials too. If you’re citing an analysis of Rawls or Kant, name-drop the master so I know what’s going on, please.

Delivery:
I can flow pretty quickly and can handle “debate speed” but don’t want to hear much more. This is more a philosophical issue than anything else—I generally will pick up a spreader 50% of the time, as they tend not to make any more, or better, arguments than a non-spreader. Quality will always beat quantity. As this is a communication event, don’t forget that you have to communicate your arguments so that I may understand them. I'll yell at you if I can't hear/understand what you're saying, of course.
I like signposting; it enhances the debate. You have to tell me where things go on my flow if you expect me to write them down. If you’re giving an overview, tell me. If you’re starting with the second contention and then coming back to the first for some cockamamie reason, tell me.
SPEAK LOUDLY
As a general rule, if I’m looking back at you in a speech (not in CX) you’re likely not saying anything worth writing down. If you read me a canned 1AR that has nothing to do with the opponent’s case, I’ll read the posters in the room or count down the seconds on my timer until the time-wasting has completed. I like clash and debating, if you haven’t noticed.

Decorum:
I don’t care whether you sit, stand, or lay on the table when you debate. Do what makes you comfortable. If that means taking off your jacket because it’s hot—go for it. Take off the heels—I don’t care.
Be nice. I get that things get heated—I was a debater too. I get it. Not much more to say here. However, if you are disrespectful it will reflect in your speaker points. There’s a fine line between assertive and jerk. I’m liberal here but have seen many rounds get out of hand. As a general rule, treat others the way you want to be treated: respectfully.

Voters:
Give them to me. If you don't, I will intervene strangely and vote in ways you won't like. Tell me how to vote. This is your round and not mine. You don't have to give them all at once, but if they aren't given I am left without a methodology to adjudicate things

Weighing:
Please weigh your impacts. If you tell me that I should vote aff for puppies, and I should vote neg for kitties, I'll be happy you've given me voters but lost on how I'm supposed to weigh them—link back through your criterion or make sure I understand there are real world impacts outside the resolution. If you're still reading this exceedingly long thing you are an excellent human and probably already know how to weigh impacts. 

Speaker Points:
I used to be a stickler about them but have seen the trend of inflation coming. With their use as a common tiebreaker, I’ve become a sort of point fairy. However, there is a scale. I'm a big backpack rap fan--work in a Watsky, Macklemore, Wax, Dumbfoundead, et cetera, reference and I might have to give you an extra point or two.
30) Excellent, passionate and engaging performance. Not uncommon but hard to attain. Argumentatively speaking, not much else you could have done better. I’m impressed. Most likely on par with the best thing I’ll see in the tournament; you deserve a speaker award.
29) Sound arguments and leadership in the discussion. Not much to improve in the way of argumentation. I’m impressed. Much more common that 30’s. You've taken the time to read your judge's paradigm--bravo to you for doing what I try to get my kids to do--you'll do fine with points.
28) Great job with the argumentation. Good delivery and good leadership. You did all that was expected of an experienced debater.
27) Great job with the arguments but you likely lost the round because of something here. You did all that was expected of a good debater.
26) You could have done more with the argumentation. You likely dropped something or committed a logical fallacy or two. Competent delivery.
24) Argumentation was deficient in some way. Delivery was likely lacking in poise.
23) You’re likely out of your league and still learning. That’s still good though—learn from our mistakes. Few refutations made and delivery was lacking. Usually didn’t fully utilize time given
20) Equally as common as 30’s. I give these because they’re usually the lowest I’m allowed to go. Only given when there’s misconduct of some sort. I’ll note on the ballot what you did to irk me.