I am a high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at acostalberto94@gmail.com
Arguments

Framework
You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

Speed
I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

Theory
I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

C/X
It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

2NR/2AR
I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

Jargon
I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Affirmatives
Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.

Negative

Topicality

This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

Counterplan
This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

Da
This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

K
Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

Background: I did two years of Policy, one year of LD, and one year of PF in high school. I participated in two NFL Nationals tournaments in Domestic Extemp. I did three years of NFA-LD (a modified version of Policy debate) while at Penn. I have been a hired judge for nearly a decade and have about one year of experience as a debate instructor (both paid and volunteer). Policy is by far my favorite debate format.

I use a tabula rasa judging philosophy; I believe that debate is not for me, it is for the debaters, so you should be able to decide what is important in the round. That said, please tell me what I should be voting on and why I should vote that way.

I am fine with counterplans and kritiks. There really aren't any arguments that I am predisposed to vote against, as long as you take the time to warrant and impact them.

I am fine with speed, but strongly prefer that you still articulate clearly (I want to be able to understand what you are saying). I am fine with a very limited amount of tag-teaming (mainly during cross-x), but please don't take over your partners' speeches.

Notes for Princeton Classic: I usually judge policy, although I have experience in both debating and judging PF. I will evaluate PF rounds in a very technical manner - I will not intervene on anyone's behalf, and I believe I should judge you on the merit of your arguments, rather than your speaking skills. That being said, I think that good speaking skills can make an argument more persuasive within the round and on my flow, especially in later speeches. 

Spread if you want to - I'm used to policy, and you probably won't approach that level of speed. Give me an off-time road map before you start your speeches. 

Policy Paradigm:

Strath Haven High School ’16 – three years of policy debate

University of Pennsylvania ’20 – first year of non-policy college debate

*If there is something I haven’t covered in my paradigm, or you don’t have time to read it fully, ask me before the round.

**Yes, I’d like to be on the email chain if there is one. My email is alexander.b138@gmail.com.

Notes on China Topic

I’ve done a fair bit of research on this topic, so I know a few things about the common affirmatives and off-case positions that are floating around. This topic has the potential to be incredibly broad, so there are some affirmatives where T seems extremely convincing.

Yale will be my first tournament officially judging this year, although I have judged some practice debates for Strath Haven over the summer.

Overview

Run the arguments that you are the most comfortable with – I am looking to vote for the team that makes the best strategic arguments and decisions.

Regardless of whether you read an aff that critically examines the topic or a traditional policy aff, clear explanation of exactly what the affirmative does will make it a much cleaner round with the least amount of intervention on my part. The same goes for the negative – if I don’t understand a part of the link story on the K/CP/DA, I will not vote for it.

Be respectful and courteous of the other debaters in the room – do not be overly aggressive during CX. I understand the competitive drive to win the round, but when that drive manifests itself in aggressive actions, you will lose major speaker points.

Quick answers:

·       Open CX is fine

·       I don’t take prep time for flashing

·       Go as fast as you can without sacrificing clarity – I will yell “clear” if I can’t understand you.

Specific Arguments

Topicality: typically undervalued in high school debate. My threshold for voting on T will likely be lower than most judges, providing you can flush out a compelling reason to vote. Don’t throw voters like “education” at me without articulating the reasons why education or fairness are important to the activity, and why I should be voting for them. Also, make sure you understand exactly what the affirmative does if you go for T, and create a nuanced violation by the negative block.

Disadvantages: my most common 2nr in high school was DA and case. These debates are primarily won on the impact level – if you are not spending at least 30 seconds explaining how the DA outweighs/turns case in every speech (and probably more in the 2NR), you’re not creating a compelling framework for me to vote for the DA. Secondarily, make sure you explain how your warrants differ from the other teams – don’t pretend that tagline extensions answer their arguments.

Counterplans: you must have a semi-decent solvency advocate in the 1NC. I know that your condition CPs and process CPs will most likely have very generic advocates, so make sure you explain precisely how they would interact with the affirmative by the 2NC.

Kritiks: When I read Ks, I mostly read Marxism and Baudrillard, so I will be the most familiar with these arguments. I have a good grasp on postmodern theories, critical race theories, and securitization critiques. I do not have a good grasp on psychoanalysis or queer theory, so if that’s your thing, you will have to explain it very clearly.

Critical affirmatives: I have a lot of experience debating against critical affirmatives – just like “traditional” affirmatives, they can be either quite good or quite bad. The best ones have a specific philosophical mechanism that indicates how the affirmative operates, typically in regards to the resolution. The worst ones are a bunch of critical authors thrown together to create absolutely nothing. Make sure you’re reading the former, and you should be good.

The common framework or method arguments are much less persuasive when you are interacting with the topic while reading a critical aff – you are welcome to read an aff that isn’t related to the topic at all, but know that the negative could have several quite persuasive arguments that you should be prepared for.

Theory: go for it, but make sure that you fully commit. Chances are you will not win a round where half your 2AR is condo and half of it is case outweighs vs the DA.

Random Thoughts

I was a 2N in high school, so I will likely be inclined to protect the 2NR by ignoring new 2AR arguments. This does not mean I will reject 2AR spin and cross-application, but the moment that it becomes an unpredictable argument or extension, it won’t be on my flow.

Try to craft off-case strategies that don’t explicitly contradict.

Asking about preferred pronouns before the round seems to be a positive trend in debate. If someone accidentally misgenders another person in the round, please correct that person politely, and if necessary, communicate further with them after the debate.

Overviews should be short and should focus on the impact level on the debate – I believe this applies to DAs and case as well as Ks.

Your speaking style (tone of voice, speed, inflection, etc.) should not matter on my flow, but is undeniably important in your overall persuasiveness as a debater. 

I judge on a 7 stock issues paradigm (Harms, Significance, Inherency, Workability, Solvency, Advantages, and Topicality). Affirmitive must uphold all 7 issues to carry the day.

Debate is a competition that takes place through the spoken word, all speeches must be delivered at a pace and in a matter so as to render them intelligible to the judge in real time or they don't go on the flow.

Kritiks are a very weak form debating, generally a last priority for evaluating my decision. Kritiks claiming exclusive access to any arguments or issues will be rejected outright.

Theory arguments are acceptable within the bounds of the paradigm if they have some bearing on the round, but they must be an accompaniment to, rather than a substitute for, debating the substantive issues of the resolution. (ie. Arguing perm theory in order to run a counterplan)

I am willing to vote on topicality if and when it genuinely applies, but keep in mind most teams have had the foresight to write topical plans, so if you are running topicality every round that is a sign of a problem with you not your opponents.

I value good analysis and higher order thinking, clever use of arguments (turns, re-frameworking the round, identifying internal inconsistency in an opponent’s position, etc.) is better than spewing cards and expecting me to vote on them.

I am affiliated with duPont Manual High School as the head speech and debate coach. I used to debate college LD, so I am familiar with the general format of most all debate. I always say that CX>LD>PF>CON...if that's not agreeable with you, then that's unfortunate, but that's just how my hierarchy Debate chain/list works. I respect all debate divisions, so please do not misunderstand

1. I enjoy K Debate, especially if it gives insightful

Anthro K’s are not as convincing to me.

2. Do not use abbreviated jargon yet because I am still learning how to apply jargon to my RFD. For example, use CONDITIONAL instead of CONDO, or Topical(ity) instead of T, or PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTER PLANS BAD instead of PICS… Sorry, but it will make the ultimate difference because I will be able to follow my flow/your narrative.

3. I am a flow judge.

4. I will call clear if I cannot understand you, and I won’t take off of speaker points after the first time.

5. Please stand to MY RIGHT side because I am deaf in my left ear. SO, if you are facing me, please spread or speak standing to the left side of the room. I will always try to sit in the center of the debate.

6. I have had experience judging CX at UPenn, PF at several national tournaments as well as in Chengdu, China, and I used to debate in LD in high school and at IU for a year. I have been coaching at duPont Manual HS in Louisville, KY for 4 years.

7. Theory Debate…I will deal with it, however, it makes me feel inferior or confused or . It just might take me a bit longer to articulate an RFD, so don’t ty and an endearing candidness - it's so adorable and

8. I love progressive LD, and spreading is fine with me.

9. LOUD, CLEAR, and SIGN POST along the way. Also, give me an off time road map before each speech, please. Traditional debate is wonderful too; however, I DO look for SOLVENCY AND COUNTER PLANS are also valued by me.

10. For PF, I value both long term and short impacts, but I need the debaters to weigh the round and tell me what i prefer in the end. Make it very clear to me what your voters are. For LD, I need you to uphold your framework and give me the Roll of the Ballot. Make it very clear, and repeat it for me so I am sure to catch it/them.11. I love topicality; an overview

I can take speed, but please be clear. I encourage progressive debate, so I will not dock speaks for calling clear. Therefore, I will call clear until I can understand you. Please take the time to adapt if I call clear.
I base speaker points on several different factors. This includes clarity of speaking, presentation, projection, and the ability to debate strategically. Impact your arguments and tell me why they matter. Pick the most important arguments and tell me the reasons I should vote for it. Also, signposting is a must.

If you have any questions please contact me at 502-572-4635 or erica.cooper@jefferson.kyschools.us.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

About me: I was raised by a single mom in Newton, Kansas. I hold a B.A. in Economics and History from Columbia University and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of California. My career is in community organizing.

Experience:

• Four years of coaching experience (teams, camp seminars, private mentoring)
• Four years of high school policy debate (Flow, Lay, K, Performance)
• Broke at the NSDA tournament in three events: Domestic Extemp, International Extemp + Policy Debate
• Placed 9th speaker in Policy Debate at the NSDA (NFL) national tournament; broke to out rounds at several national tournaments

General paradigm: Tabula Rasa. Default policymaker. Judge Non-Intervention: Under no circumstances will I intervene to stop the round, tell you to slow down, request to see any evidence unless technical rules are at stake, make small talk with you before voting, etc.

General preferences:

• Be respectful of others.
• Use all of your speech time, use all of your prep time, and put effort into cross-examination.
• Please share electronic evidence prior to speeches. I'll only time flashing if it becomes a problem or if it's required of me.
• Spreading is fine (theory against spreading is also fine). I'm well accustomed to it, and you'll be able to recognize my non-verbal frustration if I cannot understand you. But remember that spreading never substitutes for persuasive arguments.

How to win:

• Begin debate rebuttals with the words "the affirmative/negative has won the round because..." and then tell me exactly how my RFD (reason for decision) should be written on the ballot. Give me the big picture in your rebuttal, rather than immediately jumping into details.
• Use the terms magnitude, probability, and time frame to structure your arguments.

Theory:

• Conditionality - it's up for debate whether or not multiple-worlds is fair or educational. In high school, I ran two or three conditional positions whenever I had a suitable judge.
• Time sucks are often just a waste of your time. You should always just focus on making solid arguments, not arguments that just fill time.
• Don't read new evidence during the final rebuttals. The time is better spent explaining arguments you have already made.
• I generally see "Vote against the argument, not the team" as a persuasive answer to RVI arguments made by affirmatives.

Kritiks:

• Love 'em. And I have a strong familiarity with most literature used in debate.
• Contextualize the kritik to the aff. Be specific. Big words don't impress me. Analysis does.
• I've noticed that it can be difficult for me to vote for an untopical kritikal affirmative. Try to affirm the topic or relate to the topic in a meaningful way. That being said, I used k affirmatives a lot -- they're a lot more fun and educational when related to the topic.

Topicality:

• Reasonability vs. Competing Interps - it's up for debate. I like either one. Affirmatives are well-advised make a reasonability argument, a we-meet argument, and a counter-interp.
• Leverage topicality - cross-apply the standards to a theory flow; use it to establish links to disads or kritiks.
• Negatives running topicality should try to make a "there's a topical version of their aff" argument to non-uniq education voters affirmatives try to leverage. Negatives should use fairness to turn education claims. I.e "Kids will quit if debate's unfair" or "Affirmative stances unchallenged by clash inevitably fail or create political strategies wedded to violence."

Counterplans:

• Love 'em.
• Affs should be creative with perms and take time to explain them. For example, if someone runs a "Consult Russia" CP then you could argue that I, the judge, represent Russia and that the debate is the consulation. Combine cool perms like that with theory.
• Familiar with all the structures. I used a lot of creative PICs and advantage counterplans in high school. Ask me about other forms of counterplans -- I'd be happy to share some interesting ideas.

Disads and Oncase:

• Plan-specific disads coupled with well-warranted solvency turns: the best strategy ever.
• Use impact turns strategically.
• If you decide to run politics be creative. I don't particularly want to hear generic, outdated evidence I know you haven't personally cut.
• Affirmatives: when answering politics DAs, you may want to use "losers lose," impact turn the disad with better evidence, run anti-ptx theory, or try out a creative perm.
• Affirmatives should know how to strategically kick out of advantages -- competitive rounds are all about prioritization.

Things I don't like:

• Excessive small talk between speeches.
• Affirmatives that are loaded with a bunch of prempts - seems unwise to lock yourself into a position instead of giving the 2AC flexibility + chances are most of your preempts will not turn out useful.
• Certain mannerisms: speaking though your partner excessively, excessive swaring, throwing flashdrives, refusing to stand up to speak when fully capable (it helps me hear better)
• Speaking into your laptop, thereby muffling your voice.
• Debaters who won't adjust their delivery pace for opponents -- If the other team obviously cannot keep up with your speaking pace, then you should reasonably adjust your pace to suit their needs.
• People spend the entirety of the 2AC or the neg-block just reading evidence to hide the fact that they don't know how to explain their arguments and do line-by-line analysis.
• Debaters who only read pre-written blocks. I can tell.
• People who make arguments embedded in road maps.
• Debaters who just read and flow their opponents' arguments off of shared electronic files. You'll miss something that's said and it may distract you from preparing your speeches. If you have to do it this way, then fine. But I often notice it leads to dropped arguments.
• Strategies in which teams run all of their oncase in the 2NC. The 1NC should lay out most of the key arguments of the round, so that the 2NC can be spent explaining some of those arguments in-depth.

I debated at Gulliver Preparatory during high school and I am currently a student at New York University.

Though I would consider myself traditional in terms of debate style, I do find interest in performance and K debate. Debate how you want to debate, not how you think I want you to debate.

All arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Tag team cx is always good.

Flash doesn’t count as prep time but if you take excessively long and are clearly prepping I will let you know that I’m starting your clock. Also, please include me in the email chain, or flash me your speeches if you’re reading cards.

I debated for 5 years and understand the arguments, but I am a lay judge.

Spreading is fine, just be clear. I will say clear if you aren’t.

Presumption: Explain yourself and you can win on presumption. If it is true, who am I to deny that?

Topic experience: Judged one tournament (Yale Invitational) on this topic. Minor research experience.

The 2nr/2ar is where you should leave me to evaluate your arguments. Don’t assume I will default to anything said in the 2nc/2ac. If you don’t extend and explain your arguments thoroughly it will be hard for me to sign my ballot.

Kritik: Not well versed on most kritik’s but as long as you explain your argument well I have no problem voting on the K as long as your alt actually solves and your impact outweighs the affs impacts (and obviously it must link). Reading generic links is fine as long as the debate is strong. I prefer case specific links because it is just much better for debate and what everybody gets out of the debate.

Performance/framework: I would consider myself liberal in thought but relatively traditional in debate practice, so as much as I love to watch performance teams, it will be hard to win my ballot if your opponent is killing the framework debate. If the performance is within the realm of the topic it will be much easier for me to sign the ballot. I do believe that framework is a good argument though and as a non-performance debater, I tend to sway towards framework arguments over all else.

Topicality: Very little topic experience, but I do appreciate a good T argument. Don’t extend T just for the sake of extending it, extend it if it is actually a viable 2nr. T is just the truth so if you make your case well and T is applicable, I’d love to hear it. If you don’t read T and I think you should have, I’ll most likely tell you during the RFD.

Theory: Don’t try and win on theory if it’s a weak argument. Even if you debate theory better than your opponent, if your argument is irrelevant I won’t feel obligated to vote for you. That being said, I do love a good theory debate.

Disads: Love this. If there is a good, case specific link, and the impact isn’t too extravagant, if it is actually somewhat realistic, I don’t know what gets better than a good DA debate. Don’t even get me started on politics. If you’re not reading an elections disad right now I don’t know what you’re doing.

CP: As long as it’s competitive, I like it. CP theory can sometimes be a little weak to me. Have a solvency advocate and there should be a perm debate here.

I have coached debate for close to a decade, so I judge all styles. My background is in the humanities, and I teach philosophy at the high school and collegiate level. In this paradigm, I will list my preferences in order of importance:

1. Evidence (timely and well-sourced)

2. Logical connections between evidence and arguments

3. Ability to adjust in-round to what is happening and strategically and effectively countering the opposing side

4. Solvency

I rarely award wins on topicality. I am fine with kritiks and spreading, as long as I can see what you are reading. If you don't seem to understand your own argument, you will almost always lose when I am judging you. I assess this in terms of how you explain your argument in cross-ex in your own words and in your correct pronunciation and use of jargon and philosophical terminology.

I debated for three years at Strath Haven (PA). I don't debate in college, but I still judge and coach part-time. Please email me at mgyourko@gmail.com if you have any further questions. Also, please feel free to email me if I judged you. I usually take detailed notes on my laptop and am glad to share them with you.

I think my predispositions usually do not end up impacting my decision-making, so take everything I say here with a grain of salt. Do what you do best; I just want to hear a good debate. If you don’t have time to read through this whole thing, the bolded bullet points are what you really need to know:

• I make my decisions based off the flow. Regardless of your argumentative preferences, you will win the round if your arguments beat the other team’s on the flow. Be clear on the line-by-line, and do detailed impact calculus and comparison in the rebuttals. Explain your arguments fully and articulate what a ballot for your team means.
• I believe the affirmative should endorse a topical implementation of the resolution by the USFG, and the neg should respond to the 1AC. Framework is a strong strategy against teams that do not do this. That said, I have voted for affs that don't defend the state and negs that don't link to the 1AC, and this probably won't change any time soon. However, you should strongly consider striking me if your preference is to perform.
• Be clear, and don't spread theory/T. As long as you are somehow signaling when you change cards and actual words are coming out of your mouth, you can read cards as fast as you want. I recommend slowing down slightly on tags, and I implore you to slow down during theory and T.
• My kritikal knowledge base is poor. I have a baseline understanding of the most common kritiks, but the more obscure you get, the less likely I am to know what you're talking about. This is particularly true if you read at a million miles per hour or your K has lots of fancy words in it. This is OK, and I'd even dare to say that I like Ks. But it does mean that in the block you need to very clearly and slowly explain the thesis of your K, why it links to the aff, what the role of the ballot is, and why I should vote for you. 
• The rules of the tournament are not up for debate. One team will win, one team will lose, and speech/prep times are set. Prep doesn’t end until the flash is out of your computer.
• Don’t cheat. Please.

The rest of this is very disorganized. Here is a rambling list of some things I think you should do:

• Disclose your aff and past 2NRs before the round
• Flow the whole round
• Use the wiki to at least some extent
• Be respectful of your opponents, tournament staff, and the space in which you are debating
• Come up with smart, analytic takedowns of their stupid cards or arguments. Evidence is useless if it is misinterpreted or logically incoherent. I am a strong believer in an offense/defense paradigm, but I also believe that in some cases, analytic defensive takeouts can result in 0% risk of a disad/advantage. Moreover, you should go for presumption if the other team’s aff is really, really nonsensical and you’ve pointed that out throughout the debate.
• Not expect me to evaluate new arguments. You can (and should) expand on your previous arguments in the rebuttals, but entirely new arguments (claim-impact pairings) are no good. Also, as a heads up I was an angry 2N, so I really won’t be moved by new 2AR arguments.
• Keep overviews to under 30 seconds. An overview should explain your thesis and do some basic impact framing. You do not need to do it all there, however. Use the rest of the flow; it will make it easier for me to vote for you.
• Extend your interpretation/counter-interpretation when going for/defending against T. Unless their interp is terrible beyond a reasonable doubt, there is usually only risk of offense for the team that extended an interp. I don’t think it is possible to win a T debate on the aff without extending a counter-interp, unless you are 100% sure you meet their interp. Similarly on the neg, it’s not possible to win without extending an interp unless you are 100% sure they don’t meet their own interpretation.
• Make sure your T interps are actually interpretations/definitions. Not everything can be T evidence.
• Not read more than 2 conditional advocacies. My general guidelines: 0 or 1 = good, 2 = maybe, 3 = not good, 4+ = just don't.
• Use all of your CX time. You’re robbing your partner of prep if you don’t. I don’t care if you have to ask for your opponent’s opinion about the weather or Taylor Swift, just use the three minutes.
• Have a non-arbitrary role of the ballot. The community has seen a trend toward equating the question of “What should the role of the ballot be?” with “What is the most important issue that could be confronted in this round?”. While this sometimes works well, many times it does not. Ground your arguments about the role of the ballot in what it means for debate as an activity. Your RoB should be portable and applicable to any round.
• Be as technical and specific as possible. Our democracy is broken because our political discourse is composed of vacuous, vague assertions instead of the deliberation of directed policy questions. Debate is a great place to break from that.
• Not expect me to kick the CP for you unless explicitly told to.
• Remember that fiat is about what the USFG *should* do, not what it would do. Arguments like circumvention, rollback, or "Trump trumps" (apparently this is a thing!) are almost certainly illegitimate.

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
• Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Judging Paradigm of Dr. Arthur J. Kyriazis, MSc.E., Molecular Biologist, former Harvard NDT Debater

I am fair and open to all kinds of arguments. You’re not going to convince me with just a quote—you need to convince me with the argument tied to the evidence tied to the quote.  Relate, rebut, refute, summarize, go to the next point.  Be like a debating machine.  

I am a moral skeptic, but values are up for debate.  There are no ethics, only meta-ethics.  Explain why your system of ethics is correct, and I might buy in.  Don’t assume I will buy in or that I share your values.  

Kritik, counterplans, go wild.  The only thing I won’t ever vote on is probably topicality.  

I am heavily influenced by Richard Rorty and Lewis’ multiple worlds theory, as well as by critical legal theory.  Post structuralism and the impact of language means that even science, in the post-Kuhnian sense, may not be empirical.  I’m open to arguments of that nature.    At the same time, I like Rawls and neo-Kantianism.  

I do believe the Affirmative has to read a plan.  I will ask to look at evidence, even if it’s on your laptop, to evaluate it, if the round is close.  

I am trained as a scientist, unlike many debate judges, so I really like studies and empirical research based upon scientific method.  The social sciences should be based upon theories inferred from conclusions draw carefully from repeatable experiments conducted by peer-reviewed methods, not from reports written by think tanks paid for pre-ordained results.  Thus, studies paid for by Big Tobacco to prove cigarettes do not cause cancer are no good, because they have never been peer-reviewed.   One is science, the other is ideological nonscience.  

The Affirmative sets the ground rules of what the debate will be about.  It is up to the Negative to dispute that.  And if the Negative wants to discuss things other than the topic, I’m going to listen.I understand and am receptive to abstract philosophical and theoretical arguments, but I also like policy arguments based on disads and dead bodies.  I just flow listen and will consider it all carefully.  Essentially, I am open-minded.

Go as fast as you want, I can flow it.  I’m used to college debate, so it won’t matter how fast you go.  One thing is, rebuttals matter.  Do try and signpost when you are making an important or key argument, like “1 A B C” and so on.  But if you don’t, I will for you. 

Things I won’t appreciate; any disparaging language, any terms or arguments that are racist, genderist, offensive or disparaging to the LBGTQ community, any language or arguments disparaging on ethnic or religious grounds, and so forth.  I expect everyone to understand that we must have mutual love and respect for each other as human beings, and this applies even to theoretical constructs like policy debate.  

I generally don’t vote on topicality arguments, but I will listen.  

On framework, if you don’t argue framework, then my default framework is going to be as follows; 1) the negative has presumption to win 2) the affirmative has the burden of proof 3) the affirmative needs to win by demonstrating that they will be more comparatively advantageous than the status quo, e.g. the negative.  Generally, this means a comparison of dollars or lives saved or earned.  If I vote affirmative  dollars or lives gained, if I vote negative, dollars or lives lost.  This entails a comparison of advantages v. disads including stochastic probability analysis and cost-benefit analysis.  I will do this for you, because I have the economic and statistical chops.

However, if the affirmative or negative argues a criterion, as is often done in LD, and successfully defends it, then the framework can be altered.  I only default to the standard policy framework if there is no pending framework argument.  But if there is a framework argument, then I have to listen to that and judge it.  Criterion arguments are valuable because they go to moral issues—and thus if it is immoral to pollute the earth, for example, then no matter how much economic benefit there might be to extract coal, we should not do it because it would violate a fundamental criterion.  See?  Framework trumps default framework.   Or alternatively, that lives are more important than dollars.  

On kritik, I love them.  Steve Toulmin himself wrote a book on epistemology, and many others, but in essence kritik is one of the best developments in modern debate.  On counterplans, love them.  I love wild and crazy debates.   On disads, be sure they are unique to the affirmative plan.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the link chain

Send all cards before the speech, stop killing time in the round on asking for individual cards please.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

Experience: three years of HS policy debate (2013-16) nat circuit but not PA, currently a senior at UPenn

• Speed is fine, but it's been a few years so please be super clear on taglines. Numbering is helpful for me if used consistently between speeches, but if you won't continue them don't bother
• I ran mostly policy when I competed, only ever ran cap/security (and not often), not familiar with most other k lit - more below
• Cx - I won't vote on things from it that aren't in speeches. Open cx is fine but docking speaks if one partner doesn't participate at all.
• If tournament rules allow please put me on the email chain (dianalu0916@gmail.com)
• Prefer focused 2NR/2AR (quality > quantity), just tell me what to write as my rfd :)

K: Transparently, warrant level policy-oriented debate is my favorite debate, but a well-framed, well-explained, well-impacted critical round I can keep up with. I'm sold pretty easily on well executed policymaker fw. Ran a lot of fw arguments when I competed (not much theory) FW also makes for an easy RFD for me, so would spend considerable time on it with a separate flow, but up to you. Not familiar w any recent (past 3+ yrs) k lit so may need a slower explanation + definitions of any new terminology

T: Definitely appreciate a good t debate, but fairness/education impacts better take a fair chunk of the 2nr if it's going to be a serious consideration

Prep: If flashing is taking too long, counting on the other team to recommend taking prep time for it. Has really been delaying some rounds in the past. Stealing prep is a huge pet peeve of mine, if the timer's not going you shouldn't be either, super disrespectful to the other team. Let me know if you see your opponents doing it.

Admin note - recently switched back to this tabroom account, old one is under the same name for full judging history

Looking forward to meeting you all :)

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

General Paradigm: Do what you do best, Tech>Truth, Speed is fine.

Experience: I did policy debate and some LD at La Salle College High School from 2012-2016. Since then I've consistently judged ~20 rounds per year.

Aff: I typically went for a soft left policy aff but I enjoyed running big stick offs too. I think affirmatives without a plan are an important and educational part of the activity as well. What ever you option you choose just make sure that at the end of the round I know:

what the 1AC is supposed to do
how it is supposed to do it,
and why what it does matters.

I'm not the best person for a No-plan vs. K debate simply because I wasn't in and haven't seen as many rounds like that.

Neg:

Framework: If the affirmative doesn't defend a plan Framework is the strategy I most often used as a debater and am most familiar with. When executed poorly Framework debates are boring. I'm personally like fairness and education standards. Only go for fairness if the affirmative really does make the round unfair (which they sometimes do). I think Topical versions of the affirmative are important and can make it hard for the negative, especially if you can find an actual solvency advocate for the T version, but I appreciate quick thinking too.

Ks: I went for security and Neolib fairy often. The same rules apply to the Alt as apply to the Aff; at the end of the round I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. I think the link debate is very important, I think the turns case analysis is important. I can be sympathetic to aff claims that the alt is vague but that's easily mitigated by: 1 not having a vague alt, or 2 making the affirmative seem like such a bad idea that a vaguer alt is a better idea. I find that in rounds where the Affirmative doesn't defend a plan and the Neg goes for a K the role of the ballot debate gets really messy, the cleaner that is the easier my decision is. If there are role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments explain why: 1 they are the same thing and competing, or 2 they are different and how they interact. I'll be hard pressed to believe that the affirmative doesn't get to weigh the 1 AC in some capacity.

DA: The more specific the better. I think probability, time-frame, and magnitude are all important. I believe a DA can have zero risk. If the affirmative wants to go this route they're best off reading something that says "low risk = no risk." At the end of the round make sure I know why the DA matters more than the 1AC.

CP: An Advantage CP(s) with impact turns are awesome debates(but who didn't already know that). CP solvency is important. If the affirmative makes a theory argument on the CP it's a reason to reject the argument, probably not the team.

Topicality: I'll buy reasonability but it's fairly easy for the neg to beat it. If the affirmative can win reasonability they probably could have won the CI/we meet debate too, reasonability is just an easier route. T is just another argument, it needs a claim, warrant, and impact. It's easy to convince me that a term of art definition beats two words defined separately.

Debated for Washburn Rural, 2012-2016

Tl;dr: Mostly did policy, but you should debate how you're most comfortable. Speed is fine, but I'm not familiar with this year's topic so you should prob not go your absolute fastest. Prefer few, well-developed, smart args to a high quantity of shallower args. Very pro-topical affs/topicality. Fine for k's that prove the plan is a bad idea, meh for k's that do not. Framing issues are important. Buzzwords are bad. CLAIM WARRANT IMPACT. Dropped/conceded arguments are "true" but are not automatically "relevant." You still have to win an impact.

I believe debate is an incredibly valuable and life-transforming activity. For this reason, I take every round seriously – and I think you should, too. This means respect your opponents and each other. It’s ok to be assertive, but there’s a big difference between being confident and being rude.

I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means, Evidence comparison, Debaters who are funny/having fun, Warranted args/smart analytics, Well thought out strategies

Do not like: Reading args you don't really understand, Topicality=genocide, Death good, Ambush-y args like wipeout, General rudeness, Affs with shaky internal link chains (but if neg doesn't poke holes, I'll give aff the benefit of the doubt)

Case/Disads/Counterplans:

I've been a 2N my entire debate career. Most of my 2NRs have been the politics DA, topic DA, topicality, and the occasional kritik. My favorite types of debates are ones where the neg has prepared a specific strategy and is well-versed in the technicalities of the 1AC. I think the best neg teams can go for the squo and question the 1AC’s logic. For example – why does a collapse of one industry in the US mean the entire economy declines? Why does that mean global nuclear war? Deficits in the 1AC’s internal links are often underutilized by the neg on the case in favor of generic impact defense. Make sure to use your DA to turn the case at the impact and internal link level. This means impact calc is essential. Zero (negligible) risk is a thing. Not a fan of politics theory args. If the DA's so bad, beat it on substance, not on "the neg dropped intrisicness". These CPs are usually fine: PICs, Advantage, States. These are susceptible to theory: International fiat, consult/conditions/recommend, Word PICs. I can be convinced either way. Delay CPs are probably cheating. I can easily be convinced conditions and consult CPs are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps. I'll reward you for specific CPs that are well-researched and prepared.

Kritiks:

I'm not well-versed in K literature. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you'll just need more explanation. I'm fine for generic or topic specific K's. I'm not great for complex/high philosophy K's. My biggest problems with K's are usually that the alt doesn't do/solve anything, the links are triggered by the squo, and most importantly they don't say the plan is a bad idea. If you decide to go for the K, make sure to explain your args very clearly to me. This means being explicit in how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative. Otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. I am not familiar with "K-tricks", so don't expect me to recognize your argument and vote on it absent a clear explanation. Weighing the aff is good - it is difficult for me to ever believe a framework which holds the aff to a perfect standard (in terms of epistemology, representations, etc) is one that is fair. Fiat is good - obviously voting aff doesn't usually cause change outside the round, but the notion of fiat allows for intellectually stimulating debates about the costs and benefits of public policy.

Framework/Topicality:

I have a very strong bias towards the need for a stable, predictable advocacy. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a great judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. I usually default to competing interpretations – which is why I think T debates should be framed as two “counterplans” each with respective net-benefits (education, fairness, etc). Saying “depth over breadth” isn’t an argument – one of the hardest parts about going for T (and answering it), is making sure not to only explain the “link” but also implicate this in terms of terminal impacts (What does lack of education mean for debate? Why is that important? What impact outweighs the other, and why?). I think the best impacts to T are competitive equity and process-based education from deliberating with a well-prepared opponent. Both of those impacts are about the existence of a predictable topic as opposed to the merits of any particular topic. Limits are good.

Theory:

Don't particularly like theory debates because it's usually just reading blocks back and forth. I typically default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule. Theory should be impacted if you’re going for it – buzzwords aren’t enough for me to vote for your argument unless you explain it.

Good luck, have fun, and debate with heart. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

What I'm looking for follows basically the guidelines set forth in the sepcific event that you are in. Of specific importance outside these guidelines are the following:

• clearly enunciating your speech. Take your time and effectively use your voice
• use of physical characterizations and body language to help tell the story
• creative use of your voice during charazterizations
• using pacing to a purpose
• at the close bring the entire speech together in a delightful manner