Hello,

I've been in debate as a whole for about 8 years. Last debated in '20 (just before rona lol) . I've coached various formats of debate (Policy, LD, Parli, Public Forum) along with being a participant in those formats also. Here's my view: Debate is a space to challenge ideologies and come to the best way of making a change. That may look like a plan text that has an econ and heg or, it's an advocacy that talks about discourse in the debate space. I'm here for you as an educator so tell me where and how to vote. Impact Magnitude in the later speeches will help you and me a lot.

Add me on the Email doc:3offncase@gmail.com

Here's my view on certain arguments:

T and Framework and theory in general: I'll listen and adjudicate the round based on the information that you frame my ballot.

Counterplans: Gotta prove the Mutual Exclusivity of said CP. Not really a preference or style choice on this.

D/A's: Uniqueness has got to be relatively recent or the debate is gonna be a tough one to win. If paired with a C/P you must prove how you avoid said D/A or perm is gonna be super cheezy here. Again don't let that stop you from running it in front of me.

K's: I'm good with whatever you desire to run but if its some super high level (D&G or around that lit base) stuff you gotta explain what that means. Also, please be sure to know your author's lit bases here. Perm debates against K's have to prove the accessibility of the Perm along with the net benefits of the perm. Also, Impact Framing the K is gonna make your job along with mine a lot easier.

K Aff's: You do you. Tell me where to frame the ballot and how to view any performances within the round. You do you. Solvency is gonna be the point of clash along with framing.

Update for '21: My internet at my house is absolute garbage so PLEASE: start at 80% speed, I'm always ready for your speech and I'll give a reaction in zoom if I'm not.

University of Chicago 2020

araurioles2016@gmail.com 

 

I won't auto-vote on anything, I don't check out for arguments.

 

Policy Args: I enjoy policy arguments much more than I enjoy critical arguments, I guess the easiest way to put this is I wish critical teams were more practical in their alternatives. I really enjoy CP/DA debates and a good in depth case debate can tear apart an aff. 

 

T: It all comes down to competing interps and defining clear limits for what is and what is not topical. I think that is especially true for surveillance because all of the different kinds of it. The more you are able to do this the less likely I will vote on reasonability. I don't think you need to win much on T except for the fact that they are untopical, I don't think questions of abuse (potential and in round), education and fairness matter as much because affs should be topical. If you arent you should lose.

 

K's: There is a pretty good chance that unless your argument is Cap, I will have no clue what you are talking about. Critical literature is not my go to for leisure reading so I will not know what your lit base says. Explain it very well. I am not as willing to vote on the "if we win FW that means we dont have to win the alt". Granted if the other team drops this you will likely win but that is because tech>truth and not because I want to vote for you. I think Ks often times either identify non problems, are non-uq, don't disprove the aff, the alt doesn't solve, and don't give a real reason the plan is bad.

 

-------If you are aff and the neg reads cap I will appreciate good cards about why cap is good from economists and not your often times ridiculous impact turns like cap key to space. While I think these arguments are generally true, the neg is far more prepared for them but good cards that uphold the capitalist system in a truth/economics sense are far better and are often more qualified than their sociology professors/critical authors/non-economists. There is a reason we have an entire field that studies this and I will greatly reward (speaker points) affs that can prove cap is good on an empirical basis.

 

K Affs: Not a fan, I think for the most part FW is the best strategy or if you are cut from the cloth of American Hegemony the Heg Good K is always an option, but in all seriousness do what you feel gives you the best leverage against the aff and I will evaluate the debate from there. I think that affs should probably try to win some substantial impact rather than just going for something theoretical. 

 

Theory: I don't really want to listen to these debates since I think they are often shallow and almost never leave the realm of pre-written blocks. I don't have any preferences on theory and I usually won't think something is abusive but that is up for debate.

 

I probably don't want to read your evidence after the round and probably only will if there is a direct dispute over what a piece of evidence actually says.

 

Flashing isnt prep but it is pretty obvious if you are just trying to delete analytics and not use prep.

 

Great Debate Minds: Brian Rubaie, Brett Bricker, Jordan Foley, Kurt Fifelski, Adrienne Brovero, Charlie Marshall

 

General Tips:

1. You can call me Adam, I am not Judge
2. I would like to think I am intelligent person so not everything has to be simplified but use your discretion when it comes to very topic specific content since I have 0 rounds on the topic. 
3. It is your job to communicate and if I fail to get an argument it is more likely on you than on me.
4. Tech>Truth most of the time but it can be a case by case basis.
5. I default to I am a policymaker framework-but as soon as one team introduces a different framework (even implicitly in the 1AC like a K aff), it is the responsibility of the other team to tell me why this shouldn't be true.
6. I won't vote for you having more pathos than the other team, Clash and comparison>Pathos
7. Do not say I have an ethical or some kind of obligation. I don't have one, but if the other side doesn't respond to this, I am not voting on my obligation but instead because of a lack of the oppositions ability to answer.
8. I do not vote on "but they dropped it/it was conceded", your explanation of the impact of that concession matter far more
9. I usually give somewhere around a 28.3. Around a 28.7 means you were great and anything over a 29 is fantastic.

Make it clear throughout the rebuttals why you should win the debate. Make the ballot easy for me with things like well explained impact calc, etc! Easy to win T in front of me. Like arguments like T, cps, impact turns, DAs. Don't like k affs, theory, or kritiks. I'm ok with speed, but would prefer the speeches to be clear even if there are less arguments because this leads to better explanation.

UCLA '21

Email: cruzchristian.007@gmail.com

Background: 4 years in Policy, PD, and LD.

Current profession: Program Manager in Public Education.

General Preferences:

• Open to all styles: tricks, theory, K’s, policy. Prioritize well-warranted, weighted, and intriguing arguments.
• Avoid enforcing dress code-based arguments; it's an instant loss.
• I appreciate judge guidance, clarity, and clear round framing.
• Tech over truth. Vote based on clear round progression.
• Spreading is okay. Respect is paramount.
• Speak ratings: Humor, unique arguments, and clarity boost scores. Offensive behavior will lower them.
• Provide trigger/content warnings.
• I won't usually comb through evidence unless prompted.

Preferences by Style:

1. K's/performance/planless aff's, T, policy: I'm your judge.
2. Normative phil/framework, tricks, fringe theory: Slow down and consolidate arguments for clarity.
3. Traditional/LD debate styles: Perhaps consider another judge.

In Essence: Your round clarity is key. Give me structure, weigh impacts, and simplify your arguments for me. Be passionate, well-researched, and strategic. Presenting arguments I need to labor over less is advantageous. Avoid jargon without explanation. Make your round memorable, not mundane.

Specific Preferences:

1. Policy/LARP:

• Foundation rooted in defending plan aff's, DA's; familiar with west coast debates and policy strategies.
• Keen on thorough weighing and warrant comparison.
• Advocate for defending policy aff's against k's or philosophy. Justify your stance coherently and develop strong link-turn strategies.
• Have a predilection for specific politics scenarios, from Congress bills to international relations.
• 2 conditional CP's are the limit; answer potential theory arguments.

2. Philosophy:

• Acquainted with Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, and Social Contract Theories.
• Phil vs. K interactions intrigue me, but specific warranting is key.
• Skeptical about author indicts but can be swayed with strong arguments.
• Default to epistemic confidence; open to epistemic modesty if justified.

3. Tricks:

• Open to trick arguments if well-warranted and impactful.
• Emphasize creative approaches and clear ballot stories.
• Advocates for inventive strategies, seeking fresh perspectives.

4. Theory:

• Experience ranges from solvency advocate theory to body politics.
• Ensure arguments aren't overtly violent or excessively frivolous.
• Default preferences: competing interpretations, drop the debater, no RVI's. However, open to changes if justified.
• Emphasize impact turns aren't RVIs, recommending thorough engagement with the flow rather than outright dismissals.

Counterplans:

I appreciate a well-thought-out counterplan. I'm very familiar with process, agent, and advantage counterplans. If you're running a PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan), be ready to defend its theoretical legitimacy. Solvency advocates are crucial. The more specific your counterplan is to the aff, the better.

I generally believe that the aff should get some form of permutation to test the competition of the counterplan. If you’re going for a perm, have a clear explanation of what the perm does and why it resolves the net benefit. I'm not automatically against conditionality, but excessive or abusive condo might be problematic.

Disads:

Clear link stories are a must. Generic links can be okay, but specific link evidence will always be more persuasive. Make sure to weigh impacts and do comparison throughout the debate. It's crucial to have a clear internal link story, and I appreciate teams that take the time to break it down and explain. Impact calculus should happen early and often, not just in the 2NR/2AR.

Miscellaneous:

Cross-ex: I view cross-ex as binding and an essential part of the debate. It's not just a time to clarify positions but also an opportunity to set traps, build your own case, or break down your opponent's arguments. Be strategic.

Style/Speed: Speed is okay, but clarity is paramount. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you. Be especially clear when reading tags, authors, and theory arguments.

Prep time: I'm pretty traditional when it comes to prep time. Once you've called for a card or piece of evidence, the clock should stop, but frequent or long evidence exchanges can be disruptive. Be efficient.

Notes on Decorum: I believe in respect in the round. You can be passionate, assertive, even aggressive in making your points, but there's a line. Personal attacks, discrimination, or any form of harassment has no place in debate.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an educational activity and a game. Play hard, have fun, and learn something along the way. I'm here to adjudicate rounds to the best of my ability, and I want all debaters to feel like they had a fair shot when they debated in front of me. Always feel free to ask questions before or after the round to clarify my thoughts or decision. Good luck!

READ THIS --- if I catch you stealing prep during a debate, you have two options. Either (a) You have your speaker points capped at a 27 or (b) I start shaving your prep down in 30 second intervals, depending on the severity of the violation. I don't care if you're a novice or on track to win the freakin' NDT.

things that count as prep: compiling speech docs, writing arguments, talking to your partner, asking the other team what cards they read

things that don't count: emailing/flashing (as long as it's short), drinking water, walking to the stand

if you're reading this before a debate, don't. Go prep. You've got a better chance of winning the K in front me than you do completely switching up your strategy.

If you're deciding whether or not to pref me, here are some common questions that you might want answered.

who? Former Cal debater, current applied math and physics double major at Berkeley. I work in a dark matter search lab.

topic knowledge? Not a ton. Stanford will be the first tournament I've judged on this topic, so your acronyms will be foreign to me.

kritiks? Admittedly an uphill battle. I think of them like a disad with a counterplan that rarely does anything. That being said, I'd be pretty excited to hear something innovative that questions assumptions the aff has made and contextually explains why those assumptions mean the aff loses from a substance perspective (a la Cal NR). This seems unlikely for some reason though.

counterplans? The neg probably gets infinite condo. You can probably kick planks. 2NC counterplans and counterplan amendments are probably fine. It's probably not an opporutnity cost if no actor could do both.

politics DA?. yes but it's probably dumb. You should probably also go for a counterplan.

speed? Oftentimes the slower team makes the smarter arguments by understanding where to prioritize their time. If I can't hear you I'll tell you.

t? Yes. If T is the 2NR, then T is the 2NR.

Hello all, I just finished debating for four years of varsity policy for Nevada Union and now I am a Stanford freshman. I was the 2n for Nevada Union's A team for the last two years. I debated on the transportation infrastructure topic through the surveillance topic. I got to a couple bid rounds and made a finals appearance at DDI. I read mostly kritikal arguments although I am fine with any type of debate and I default policy maker unless I am told otherwise. I am not debating in college and am also not familiar with this years resolution.

 

General Things:  

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Please warrant your claims. 

Please time your own speeches. 9 minute 1NC's make me sad. 

I don't count prep for flashing but don't go overboard.

Slow down on theory and analytics.

Don't be an asshole. People don't like that. I am fine with a good amount of sass though.

 

Specific Arguments:

K Affs: I have read mostly non-plan text affs for the past couple years and I enjoy this type of debate. I do believe that these affs should have a good justification of why they are not defending a plan text. I am not biased for or against T arguments against K affs. 

K's: I enjoy K debate. Please don't just assume that everyone is on the same page if you make vacuous postmodern claims. Explain the story of your argument just like you would on any other type of argument.

T: I like T debate and went for T in a pretty decent amount of my 2nr's. I will probably default to competing interpretations but am fine with voting on reasonability

Framework: I'm good for framework - see the k aff section.

DA's and CP's: these are arguments. I will vote on them. Do Impact calc work on DA's and solvency explanations on CP's.

Theory: I will vote on theory arguments. Make sure you clash with the other teams theory arguments instead of just reading your 15 point condo block. Voters are claims. Claims need warrants. It will be very hard to convince me that the statement "they dropped condo that's a voter, moving on to the case flow" is a reason you should win a debate.

 

Feel free to contact me at either jfenner@stanford.edu or joefenner@rocketmail.com for questions about this paradigm or judging. 

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

Hey all,

I'll keep it brief: longtime college debater and judge, limited exposure to this resolution. Policy or k, assume I don't know your lit base and I try very hard to let you explain it your way. Speed is fine but acronym soup and undeveloped warrants aren't always. Procedural arguments need warrants like any other. I'm happy to clarify as long as both teams get to hear the answer. 

Respect each other, lip service is insufficient.

It's been a while, but I was a policy debater throughout high school and college and coached at Utah and UNC. I've judged a bit over the past few years, but not enough to be totally up to speed on things. What this means for you is that I can understand what you're saying and write it down, but you still need to make sense out of it all. Help me out with some of the jargon. I don't have strong opinions about or preferences for certain types of arguments. Arguments should make sense, be made in full in the debate, and include evidence read in full if you need it to support the argument. If I'm on an email chain, I won't read the speeches during the round to understand arguments and evidence that weren't clear. If I need to, I'll look at things after the debate. In the last two rebuttals, explain, compare, and weigh so I don't have to do those things on my own. We will all be happier if you do.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

ABOUT ME

I am currently a senior at Milpitas High School (CA) and have been debating for three years as the 2a/1n. Feel free to e-mail me at beamcpalacio@gmail.com about any questions that you have about the round and to add me to the e-mail chain. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible for any of y'all, please hit me up and be sure to tell me before round. Most importantly, I love dropbox and memes, so feel free to dropbox me some lol  

TL;DR

Please do what you do best! Despite my bias for certain types of arguments, I will leave my biases outside of the door when I am judging you. You have the discretion to run whatever you want, so long as it isn't problematic (racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, etc.). I can be persuaded to vote for anything as long as it is debated well and you understand what you are saying!  Please be organized and speak clearly, because I will not flow what I can't hear. Pls have fun and enjoy what you're doing--debate  is stressful and I want you all to have a good time while you're in round bc we all devote a lot of time into this activity. Don't be an asshole, but also do be a little bit of an asshole because watching condescending cross-x's are hilarious and I like to be entertained. 

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS

POLICY AFFS: I've read a policy aff once or twice in my life, but that doesn't mean I understand all of the nuances that go with policy affs. I mostly read soft left or K affs, so I am not the best judge for you, but I will understand what is going on. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read a policy aff in front of me. Do what you do best!! A good policy vs policy round is always fun to watch. That being said, I love love love interesting and creative policy affs. Framing in the 1ac against K oriented teams (while they are annoying to hit) are super strategic and I will give you mental bonus points.

K AFFS: If you do it, do it well! I love K affs and find them to be a very valuable and necessary part of debate, especially as a break from traditional policy affs that we hear every single weekend. If you run a K aff, I do believe that tech is necessary. Techy truth is my fave. If you're reading this and you don't run a K aff but feel it's necessary to do it in front of me, pls don't be that person. I am most common with identity kritiks, but if you want to read any postmodern theory in front of me, feel free to. I'm not the best with postmodern theory, but I understand a good amount  of it and will probably understand what is going on in the round so long as you explain yourself well. 

If you include a role of the ballot or role of the judge, do not just throw it up in the air and leave it on the flow--tell me why the role of the ballot/judge is necessary and why I should follow your framework vs. their's. 

CASE: Lol what is a case argument (i'm kidding i swear). Honestly, most debates I have debated, watched, or judged have underutilized the case debate, but I think it is one of the most important parts of the entire debate. If the neg drops your case and you are aff, weigh that against them. I think a good amount of aff teams are preoccupied with answering cards from blocks that they forget to utilize their case against the neg (including me). Pls don't drop case. 

KRITIKS: *heart eyes emoji*

That being said, a lot of people run K's to be cool, edgy, and to confuse their opponents, but often don't understand what they are reading. I love kritiks and love the literature that I get to read because of debate, so a lot of people who invest their time into debate really care about the K's that they read. Do not be that person who reads a K to be edgy or cool. Explain your alternative well and explain how it functions in the debate round. I love super nuanced K debates and I will love you if you know every single detail about your author's literature. 

I know more about identity K's, but read postmodern theory if that's what you do best. Please make sure to explain all of your jargon to me, because I will not vote on something that I don't understand the meaning of. Chances are, if  I don't understand what's going on, neither do you. Do not throw words out into the debate space and use meaningless jargon that no one knows about--because honestly, does Baudrillard even know what he was saying? Postmodern theory is interesting and I love reading it, but if I don't know how it functions within the debate space. I will not vote for you. 

DISADS: I've read like 2 DA's in my life. I am not the most versed with DA's, but I do think interesting and argument specific DA's are amazing and cool and I will probably praise you for being creative and edgy, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for you. You do you, though. 

COUNTERPLANS: If you're that team that runs creative counterplans that solves for the aff, then do it. Counter-advocacies and counter-methods against K affs are great. I don't like generic counterplans off of openev, and if you do this as a timesuck I will not be happy and you have better places to allocate your time to. 

THEORY: Meh. 

FRAMEWORK: Framework is a great strat and if you run it, weigh it well against the aff and tell my why they are being abusive by not reading a plan text. I find good framework debates very enjoyable and like watching these rounds when done well. I am usually on the other side of the framework debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for you. I am meh about generic framework arguments like decision-making skills, especially if you just read your team's pre-written blocks against K affs. Unless you have a better strat to a postmodern aff, you should probably be reading framework because you are probably right. If have no bias for or against framework and can be persuaded either way. 

SPEAKS: I am a speaker points fairy and believe that speaker points really affect how people feel after the round--and I want you all to be happy regardless of what happens! That being said, I will definitely give you low speaks if you are 1) problematic, 2) incoherent, and 3) unorganized. If you can make me laugh during the round at any time by referencing a meme or something, I will give you extra speaks and talk about you to all of my friends. If you look at me and are cool and edgy and go straight off of the flow, I will swoon and love you if it is done well. Assholes are rude, but I think it's entertaining when someone is kind of condescending during cross-x. That being said, do not br unnecessarily rude!!!! DO NOT!

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

Last edited 1/30/2021.

2020 Important Notice:

I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.

I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.

My virtual debating policies:

You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.

Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:

-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.

-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.

-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.

IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.

If you are a first year debater:

If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.

Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.

An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.

You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.

Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.

Ethics things:

I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!

I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.

General:

You do you as long as you can explain it.

Tech > Truth

When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!

Nontraditional affs:

I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:

At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.

That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.

Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.

Case debate:

Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.

It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.

Topicality/Theory:

Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.

Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.

Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.

The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.

Framework:

I lean neg on this question.

Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.

The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.

Fairness is an impact.

Debate is probably a game.

Disads:

I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.

Counterplans:

These are great, I love them.

Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.

Kritiks:

Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.

Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.

The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.

Good Luck and have fun!

(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)

Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.

J.D.C.

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

 

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

 

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

 

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

 

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

 

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

I'm currently a student at UC Berkeley and an assistant coach at Sonoma Academy. I debated policy two years in high school and cleared at several national tournaments, so I almost know things. That said, I have been out of the game for a while so...

I will not shake your hands bc germs are real, but it's not personal I promise.

If possible, I'd prefer an email chain to flashing. most times, flash drives take forever to use and drag debates out for too long.

I don't have super strong argument preferences, i.e. I won't reject anything immediately (except for blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic nonsense). That said, I probably do have higher and lower thresholds for certain arguments, which I'll try to lay out here.

Meta-Stuff:

Every argument should be a viable 2NR/2AR option, don't read clearly throwaway arguments just to waste time. you might as well just shorten your speech.

BE INCLUSIVE. if your opponents ask for pronouns, content warnings etc. you should provide them.

I default to offense/defense paradigm to start with, but I can be persuaded otherwise, just make the argument

I believe that my role as a judge is to evaluate the desirability of the affirmative. Take that as you will.

DO THE STUFF YOU'RE GOOD AT!!! Please don't read arguments you don't know just b/c you think they'll make me happy. they won't, and I want to watch you do you, not you do me (weird phrasing but its late and you get it).

Style - you do you. I'm a big fan of jokes, and the will make me pay attention to you more. If you aren't funny though, don't try too hard :)

Signpost/be clear when you transition between cards, I don't want to look at the doc unless I need to read evidence.

I like nature, so make some tree jokes and teach me something new about this planet and I'll be stoked.

I'm fine with speed, but please be clear and limit spitting bc GERMS and it is distraction.

Specific Args:

Counterplans - They pretty cool. I love CP texts that are specified to specific parts of the aff and thing that original CPs (not the states CP) are severely underutilized.

Disads - no reason I wouldn't like them. they go well with counterplans. I don't think zero risk is a thing, but I do think it's easy to win a much larger risk of the aff.

Kritiks - I'm down. I'm well versed in most literature, but that means I also expect you to be well versed in it. And I will notice and evaluate sloppy explanations. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and offensive, and I'd rather not listen to these debates. If you are going to read high theory, I'll have a similar threshold for explanation. The higher the theory, the higher the threshold. you also should answer questions in CX. MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. Winning debates by being an asshole is not cool and will be reflected in your speaker points.

!!!I do not think that performance in JV debate is a good thing. When executed properly, performance debates are some of the most interesting and important arguments that take place in this community, that being said, in JV debate that execution is not there, and it almost always devolves into some form of name calling or other disaster. I do not care if you are an amazing performance debater, in a JV pool, the chances are low that your opponents are similarly qualified, and I really really don't want to judge a debate that devolves into calling an antiblackness team white supremacist (it's happened and negatively affects the community).

T - default to competing interpretations, but will go either way. Don't read throwaway T arguments. Impact it out. Why does fairness matter?!!

Policy Affs- I'm down. I think that you should be ready to beat the advantage counterplan, and be reasonably topical. solvency advocates are a must - you should have a person that says we should do the plan and have NUANCED WARRANTS.

Non-Traditional Affs - I went to the UTNIF, so I'm familiar with the lit. That said, I have preferences: Baudrillard and his cohorts are frustrating and I'd rather not listen to these debates. Other than that, updating K-aff uniqueness (trump makes state x) is a really persuasive argument, and something I'd love to judge. That being said, I have a very high threshold for pomo nonsense because I tend to think that stuff exists, and really do think that you should have a concrete advocacy statement.

a few arguments I think require more nuance-

I don't understand why debate as a home, or a survival strategy requires you to win ballots. Losing is probably the most valuable thing debate can do for you, because it's loss that educates you and hones your skills. I never felt like I was no longer part of the debate community after going 2-3 at Fullerton.

you must be able to beat the Topical Version- I think that a TVA, even just being able to access your literature takes out almost all of your offense against framework. you should try to provide reasons that topical action (under the neg interpretation) specifically excludes your lit base.

NEG TEAMS - I'll appreciate you a whole lot if you just go for case turns. A lot of times, these affs don't make sense, and you can probably think of a cool way to turn them. obviously don't do it if it isn't a winning strategy though.

Framework - It's always good to know when theoretical or substantive strategies are strategic. Other than that, you should have a TVA, and offense against the counter interpretation.

Pet peeves:

please please please don't ask the other team "what cards did you read". Flow the speech, not the speech doc :)

explain. your. solvency. If I don't know how your aff solves the impacts at the end of the debate, I'll be comfortable voting neg on presumption, and uncomfortable weighing aff offense against framework or literally any other argument, because I don't know if the aff solves. on the flipside, if I do know how and what your aff solves, I will be impressed and very happy with you/very willing to leverage the aff as a reason framework is bad.

speaks -

>29.5 you should win this tournament, I'll probably tell my friends about you

29-29.4 - deep elims, you should do well at this tournament

28.5-28.9 - good, needing some improvement but should probably break

28-28.4 - average

27.5-27.9 - decent, but with some big rhetorical or strategic mistakes

27-27.4 - needing serious improvement

<26.9 you made me sad or said something evil

0 you clipped cards (this comes with an emphatic L)

If you show me that you've posted the relevant documents (1NC opensource, new offense) on the wiki after the debate, I'll give you a .2 speaker point boost because opensourcing is good and should be encouraged. If you don't know how, ask me and I'll help you set up a wiki.

Harker 2013-2017 (debated policy all 4 years, 2A for the last 3 years). Currently a senior at Rice University (not debating).

Updated before ASU 2021 to gear my paradigm more towards LD now that I rarely judge policy.

please put me on the email chain - molly dot wancewicz at gmail dot com

Online Debate:

I'll say clear once if I can't hear you but not beyond that because I don't want to miss even more of what you're saying. Record all of your speeches locally - if there's some kind of error/issue I will listen to the recording but will not allow you to re-give or re-do your speech. It would be excellent if you could have your camera on during the entire debate (at least CX and prep!) but I know everyone has different situations so if you can't/don't, I won't hold it against you. Please no prep stealing or other shenanigans that take advantage of online debate.

Arguments:

I think LD = short policy.

Theory - I have a higher threshold than most judges for voting on theory. I am not interested in hearing you throw out a bunch of random theory shells and see what sticks. There needs to be significant in-round abuse for me to vote on theory. Not wanting to engage with the aff is not the same thing as abuse. My threshold for abuse is probably slightly lower for cheating counterplans like consult, add-a-condition, object fiat, etc. I will literally never vote on an RVI.

Phil - I am not a good judge for a phil debate. I evaluate debates using the offense-defense paradigm, so I will be a much more effective judge if you read your argument as a kritik with an alt, or even as a DA, rather than as a traditionally-structured NC. At bare minimum you need to explain how your NC means that I should evaluate the debate and its offensive implications but I will be unhappy.

Framework - I default to util unless told otherwise.

Negative Strategy - Splitting the 2NR is almost never a good idea. Will definitely affect speaker points.

DAs and Case - I will be really really happy if this is the debate I'm judging :) Everything is fair game - politics and spinoffs, elections, topic-specific DAs, etc. Technical case vs. DA debates are great and proficiency here will have a significant positive impact on speaker points. I have a higher threshold on voting for neg arguments that aren't contextualized to the aff.

Nontopical affs - I will admit that I'm neg-leaning in the nontopical aff (k aff) vs. topicality (framework) debates. I find topical version of the aff arguments very persuasive. Fairness is a less compelling topicality/framework argument to me, but I would still vote on it as a net benefit to the TVA. I think k affs need to have an advocacy of some sort and be related to the topic.

Kritiks - I am reasonably familiar with the basics (security, cap, colonialism, etc) and a lot of identity arguments. I am much less familiar with high theory/postmodern stuff. Regardless of the author, though, contextualization to the aff is extremely important to me in the kritik debate - at the very least, the 1NC should include one specific link card. I find generic kritiks that aren't contextualized very unpersuasive. I think most k alts are implausible/prohibitively vague and/or don't solve the link - I find CX pressing the plausibility and details of the alt really effective. In addition, I am often very willing to vote on case outweighs and/or case solves the K given that these arguments are well-explained in the 2AR.

Counterplans - Need to have a solvency advocate. I like specific counterplans and I think DA+CP is a great 2nr, but I'm not a fan of cheating CPs (see theory) and I'm pretty aff-leaning on the theory question for these.

Topicality (vs policy affs) - I’m willing to vote on T. Even if your violation is bad, I’ll vote on tech in the T debate (within reason obviously)

Don't be rude - If you're mean to your opponent or partner (if applicable) your speaker points will reflect that.

If I happen to be judging PF:

Impact comparison is really important at the end of the debate - please don't make me do it for you.

Danlei Zou

Lowell High School '17

University of California, Santa Barbara '21

Email: Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please send to dazou0112@gmail.com and lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com - I'll be accessing one or the other during the rounds.

NOTE FOR GGSA STATE QUALS 2021:

I haven't judged any rounds on the 2020-2021 topic, so please assume I know nothing about your arguments (in reality I can probably understand most of them, but the burden is on you to show me). Speed is fine, but I won't hold it against you for not spreading. Quality and clariy in the debate is better than speed, and if there is a lay judge on the panel please respect that.

Background:

I debated 4 years of policy at Lowell High School and am currently not involved in college debate. I'm an environmental studies major, so I will be especially critical of anything that is factually incorrect in the realm of anything climate change, ecology, or biodiversity related.

If there's anything y'all have qualms on that isn't covered in my paradigm, feel free to email me; I'm more than happy to answer questions.

*DISCLAIMER*: I know the extent of my ability to judge debates and am very open and honest about it -- I have no problem admitting that my skill as a judge is not up to par with some of the others in the pool but I will do my best to keep up. If you prefer to read something that I say I'm not familiar with in my paradigm or like to pull technical tricks, I likely won't know it and will not be the best judge for you.

tl;dr:

1. Tech>Truth: I don't care what you run as long as its not offensive - just win the LBL and you'll get my ballot.

2. Flashing=/=Prep but don’t abuse it. Yes, I want to be on the email chain or in the speech doc room or whatever kids are using nowadays.

3. I default to a policymaking framework unless I am presented with a different framework in the round. Then, it is the other team's job to prove why the opposing team's framework is bad.

4. Please explain your arguments. Please please please. I was guilty of not doing enough analysis during debates in my high school career, and it's now blatantly obvious to me as a judge why that was important. Please explain and warrant why your evidence and arguments are important and why I should vote on them. I'd rather y'all choose a few of the most important arguments to explain to me in depth rather than spew as many lines as you can at me. I want to be able to fully comprehend your arguments and know why you think you should win the debate by the end of the rebuttals.

5. If there is no clash, I will be extremely bored and my facial expressions will reflect that. I am very expressive; anyone who knows me will tell you so. Exploit my expressive personality and know when you or the other team is saying something that's complete BS.

6. I will vote on presumption, but explain to me why I should. Simply saying "vote neg on presumption" without any explanation of why will not convince me.

7. IMPORTANT: if you don't know whether or not I'm familiar with your K (or like it), ask me before the round either via email or track me down somehow. I'm pretty easy to spot and am friends with like EVERYONE on Facebook so chances are someone on your team is probably friends with me.

8. I'd prefer not to call for cards after the round - I will be doing my best to keep up with reading the cards in speech docs during prep and whatnot. If you think the opposing team's cards are sketchy for one reason or another, say so during your speech. I will not point it out for you.

9. Be nice. If you are a shitty person your speaks will reflect that, even if you win the ballot.

10. Speed is fine. I'd prefer if you don't go your full speed, but as long as you are clear and are organized I will be able to flow you. If I can't, I'll say clear three times max and then stop flowing and do my own homework.

11. You do you. Do your best and go for what you think you're ahead on and what will win the round, not what you think I like.

Complete paradigm:

Nontraditional: I strongly believe that the affirmative must defend the hypothetical implementation of a an action done by the United States federal government. It is difficult but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I will try my best not to let my personal biases interfere with what's happening in the round. That being said, it is the neg's burden to prove why reading a nontraditional aff is bad. A competent extension of framework all throughout the debate usually does this for me, but I think having a TVA and education/fairness impacts are key. Prove why their interpretation is bad for debate and you'll win my ballot.

Topicality: T is great. Run T. Personally I think limits is the most persuasive and easiest standard to win on, but do whatever floats your boat. I default to reasonability and competing interpretations. 2A/2Ns should really focus on explaining to me the impact debate and why you should win your education/limits claims in the rebuttals.

Theory: As the 1N who usually took theory for 5 minutes in the block I usually lean neg on theory, unless it's condo. 2 condo is fine, read more at your own risk. That’s just a default though and can be easily reversed. Usually "reject the argument, not the team" is pretty convincing.

Kritiks: PLEASE EXPLAIN. Unless your K is security, neolib/cap, or Orientalism, I probably didn't read them in debate very often. I've studied and read quite a bit of literature on process metaphysics in college (Nietzsche especially, but also Baudrillard, Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger) so if you don't know and can't explain these figures' philosophies, I will be able to tell and will be less likely to vote on those arguments unless it's for a VERY blatant technical reason. Don't let that discourage you from running high theory Ks, I'll still vote on them if those debates are done well. I have a high threshold for K's; if you run one, you gotta explain how it links to the aff, how the alt solves/is a priori issue, and for the love of coffee please explain the jargon. Using big fancy words does not win you the debate. I know what epistemology and reps are, but you need to show me that you do. The more specific the K is the to aff, the better. Reading framework against K's is always a good idea - especially if you have no idea what the K is and feel that you can't win the K proper debate. However, I will not simply vote on "if we win FW then we don't have to win that the alt fails/solves". If the other team drops this, I will probably vote for you but I will not be happy about it. It is usually pretty easy to win that extinction is a prior issue than eliminating cap from society (Bostrom) in front of me, but I will not assume this if you don't read a card on it. Explanations are key!!!

Framework: I ran framework A LOT, way more than I would like to. The biggest problem with traditional framework v. a K aff is that it falls prey to the exclusion DA. K affs should be closer to the topic than not, but it is up to you to explain to me how your aff relates to the topic. I will vote neg on framework debates if the neg convinces me that K aff is just unrelated to the topic. We have a resolution for a reason. There are great K affs that engage with the topic, and even if your aff doesn't convince me that it does. Neg teams need to explain how their model of debate interacts with the aff.

Disadvantages: Love them. Disad/Case debates are my favorite types of debates to watch. Prioritize your impact work!! Make your links specific, especially if you are reading something generic like politics. The more specific the DA the better. Even though I love these debates, it's pretty easy for the aff to convince me that most DA's are stupid by using author indicts/smart analytics. Be smart and it'll save you loads of time.

Counter plans: I love watching good CP+DA/Case debates. Please have a net benefit/solvency advocate, or else you're probably going to lose the CP. I don't have a favorite type of counterplan, but I ran a lot of really specific PICs in high school and think they're cool.

Case: Too many teams disregard case as the debates go on. I like to see clash between the off case and the aff both from the aff and neg teams. I do believe in zero risk even within an offense defense paradigm. If the aff team doesn't extend any impacts through the end of the debate, there is very little chance that I will be voting for you. Also, simply saying "extend the nuclear meltdown impact/Kagan card, that's our impact" is not an extension. Explanations are key.

Cross-X is underrated. It is binding and it’s a speech. I like aggressive cross-xers and I doubt I’ll think you’re mean unless you cuss them out or if you are blatantly rude. The only caveat to this rule is if you are conclusively winning/debating novices who should not be in varsity you should be as nice as possible.

Speaker Points: I give speaker points based on how well you speak and your style of speaking, not based on technical things in round (there are exceptions). If you're great technically, you'll likely win my ballot and I think that's reward enough for substance in rounds. I want y'all to be encouraged by receiving speaks that aren't as reliant on your technical skill in round -- a great speaker doesn't necessarily win all of their rounds. Cade Cottrell describes this way better than I do and I pretty much agree with how he gives out speaks so check out his paradigm. I range between 27-29 mostly, < 25 is reserved for people who are blatantly racist, sexist, or mean. Or if you read wipeout. If you catch the other team clipping, record it and show me. Clippers get a 0. I've never given me a 30 -- convince me why you should be my first 30 and you'll get it.

How to get better speaker points in front of me:

Make me laugh! Jokes/puns are appreciated as long as they are not offensive. Snarkiness and sass are welcome, but never at the expense of the opposing team. I'll give you 0.2 extra speaks if you can tell me who I poached a small part of my paradigm from (hint: Cal).

DO NOT:
-be racist

-be sexist

-be homophobic

-read wipeout (willing to give leeway on this if it's justified, but it rarely is)