Barstow Debate: 2014-2017

Barstow '19

TCU '23

Hey yall. I have about three years of experience in policy debate, but I don't know the topic. I will evaluate the round the best I can, but you might need to go a little slower and explain things more clearly.

Thanks!

email: zoe.brous@barstowschool.org

Debated Maine East H.S. 2009 -2012, Coach/Judge 2012 -

Debate is an educational game where everything in debate is debatable i.e. should I prefer tech over truth, do I need a plan text. Be nice to each other, try your best and have fun. Prefer debates were debaters are challenged to think in new ways. Do not be deterred from going for any argument because of what you read here. I’m open to listening to and voting for any argument even debates about what debate should be i.e. k of debate. Just because I stated that I will listen to / vote on / prefer something does not mean that it is an automatic win. If I do not understand something I will not vote on it.

Has been said in many different ways by many different individuals: debating / coaching for a school without many resources and understanding the experiences of similar schools competing against schools who are well resourced, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debate. I will default to a policy maker but am open to other ways of deciding the ballot. I will go off the flow and will try not to intervene, however I might default to my opinions below (which are not concrete).

I will vote for the least complex way to sign the ballot. Explaining your arguments / ideas and keeping the debate organized by road mapping, sign posting, and line by line are key and will help your speaker points. Other things that are key and help to explain / frame the debate are: overviews with impact clac, turns case/da arguments, framing of arguments and the debate, impacting out arguments, and in-depth analysis of arguments. Likewise, overall analysis and framing of evidence / arguments / warrants / qualifications / the round, is key. “Even if” statements will help with speaker points and to frame an argument. Do not assume that I know an argument, author, or specific terms. Analytics, defensive arguments (even without your own evidence) are able to reduce any argument/evidence to zero risk or close to it. If I do not understand a part of the argument or it is not explained/major gaps in your logic I will be less likely to vote on it, even if it is dropped. Explain to me why you should win the round and what this means for both you and your opponent’s arguments. Speed is ok but need to clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Emailing speeches does not count as prep time as long as it is reasonable and send it all in one doc. Have cites available after the round. I will vote down teams/dock speaker points for rudeness, racist, sexism, unethical, offensive and unacceptable arguments / behavior.

Look at / debate / answer the actual warrants (or lack thereof) in the cards not what the card is tagged as. Comparing evidence / qualifications with explanations as to whose is better helps me to evaluate an argument (even just reading evidence and pointing out its inconsistency is great (will help your speaker points)) and is something that I find is missing in a lot of debates. If their evidence is bad point it out. I will read evidence if call for or if I believe there is an issue with it.

Cross x – Tag Team is fine if both teams are ok with it. Overtaking your partner’s cross-x might result in lower speaker points. Be sure to carry cross-x into the rest of the debate. If you indicted a piece of evidence or proved that an argument does not work, say so in your speech.

Theory – Just like any other argument dropping theory is not an auto-win. If a part of the theory is not explained well enough or the other team points out that it is not explained or missing, I will be less inclined to vote for it. Will vote on all types of theory, but need to explain the theory, in-round abuse (why what they did was bad), voters, fairness, education, impacts and why I should either reject the argument or the other team. Do not just re-read your blocks. The more specific the theory is to the argument / abuse / voters / round, the better.

Topicality – Overviews help. Tend to lean affirmative (Neg has the burden) unless there is a clear: violation / definition, bright line between topical and untopical, impacts for allowing the affirmative and others like it to be topical and in-round / potential (prefer in-round) abuse. Will default to competing interpretations. Explanation on all parts of the flow are key i.e. definition, bright line, topical version of the affirmative, case lists, reasons to reject the team (in-round and potential abuse), standards, ground, limits, voters, fairness, education, and impacts. Reasonability, clash / lit checks, race to bottom, etc. are able to reduce the chance of voting on topically. Will vote on aspec / other spec arguments however, need to show abuse in-round.

Speaker points – My range is 27.8- 28.5, this does not mean that I will not go above a 28.5. The road to better speaker points is in this philosophy i.e. know your arguments, be clear, do line by line, point out inconsistency in arguments and evidence, extend / explain / compare warrants and or qualifications (or lack thereof), road map, sign post, impact clac, frame the debate and the other things that are listed in the various sections.

Plan text / Counterplan text – Should be written down. Check how they are written. Will vote on plan flaws and counterplans that change the plan text with a net benefit.

Affirmative – Two things are key: good overviews with impact clac and in-depth case analysis.

Counterplan – Use overviews. Make sure that there is a clear net benefit and/or solvency deficit.

Disads/advantages – Good overviews with turns case /da along with impact analysis/clac where opponent’s impacts/arguments are considered. Disad links should be clear and specific to the case. All types of turns (link, impact and straight) are also a good idea.

K–Explain. Have a general idea on the basic k, not a k hack, but will vote on them (including k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be). The k needs to be specifically explained not just in terms of what the idea of the k is, but what is the framework, link (the more specific and clearer the better), impact and alterative (not only what the alterative does but how its solves the k and plan’s impact (i.e. root cause) and what does the world of the alterative looks like). A good overview of the k and framework helps a lot. The affirmative should always question the alterative.

K affirmatives and framework - Will vote on k affirmative and k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be. Needs to be a clear role of the ballot and clear reason why your version of debate is better. Totally fine with looking at images, listening to music, narratives, stories and other things. Debates are more interesting when: the neg does not just read framework / k but engages with the affirmative and the affirmative k the negative positions through the lens of the affirmative. Framework and disads to framework have to be explained, show how your interpretation of debate solve or root causes the other side’s impacts, impacted out fairness and education, have analysis to show which style of debate is the best and show why the affirmative or argument should be or not be in debate.

About me/TL;DR:

• She/her
• Debated at Iowa City West High School 2014-2018
• Education: UMich - Bachelor's ('22) and Master's ('23) studying Economics, Cognitive Science, Biopsychology, Cognition and Neuroscience (BCN), and Management (Master's)

If you get one thing out of my paradigm, it's that I don't flow off docs, I don't look at docs during the debate, and I only look at cards if the debate is really close and the debate hinges on 1-3 cards and there's something about the card itself that is contested (rare event).

Another thing: prep stops when you hit send on your email, not "stop prep, okay I'm sending it out"

With that being said, please put me on the email chain: laernst@umich.edu just in case that rare situation happens.

I have a name, please use it. I will be sad if I am only referred to as "judge".

IF ONLINE: please speak a little slower (tech sound distortion makes you and me sad), and hold timers away from your computer mic, I'm jumpy and the loud beeps are yucky to my brain(especially if they're mid speech, I will likely stop flowing for a sec and potentially miss something)

Ask questions if you want clarification or if I forgot anything :)

Please put trigger warnings on your args as needed and ask if they're okay before the round (for the sake of myself and your opponents) -- one caveat: please do not read su*cide arguments in front of me -- I will go to tab and get you a different judge if needed but no one wants to deal with me crying in the back.

Long Overview --

I debated primarily policy arguments throughout high school and if you rely on jargon my brain will shut off and you will be just as frustrated with me as I am with you. However, I'll be open to whatever you want to debate, just be aware I might need additional explanation. In general, case-specific everything is wonderful. I also actually enjoy well-executed kritiks, just don't read a 2-minute overview, and if you say "sarcophagous DA" I will mentally cry.

Caveat to "open to whatever": if you make the round an unsafe space (race, gender, mental health, disability, etc based), I will end the round, drop you and give you the lowest speaks I can and probably follow up with your coach. Be mature, and good people. If you think "can I say this?" don't. Also, asking for pronouns is always okay. You also are never obligated to share your pronouns.

Also, debate is supposed to be fun, not stressful. Have fun, be nice, and if you make me laugh or excited your speaks will increase. Also, if you get excited about an argument, I'll get excited because smiles and laughter are contagious.

I vote on what I can give a coherent RFD on. If I look lost, I probably am. Help me help you. If at the end of the round, I don't understand your theory, I will not vote on it. I avoid going into the email chain and I do not flow off speech docs. I make decisions based on the shortest path.

Since I do not flow off of speech docs, I would recommend looking up occasionally to see if I am flowing. If I'm not and you want me to be, slow down and fix your clarity. It is not on me to fix your clarity. I will stop flowing and stare at you if I can't understand what you're saying. Oh I also flow cross x. Same thing applies. During cross and in general, remember you should be facing and speaking to the judge. Also, if it's early, you should slow down, no one can go their fastest first thing in the morning.

It has recently come to my attention that ethics violations with respect to broken links, forgetting authors in a cite, etc., are popular ballot-winning tactics. I, for the most part, will not vote on this. Save your crappy ethics violation for a different round, you probably need those 20 seconds to explain a warrant in your card. That being said, if something is legitimately an ethics violation (e.g. clipping cards), I'll vote on that in a heartbeat.

Generic stuff --

I will do my best to be open if you're doing your best to communicate. Debate isn't about who can speak the fastest, it's about who can EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE ARGUMENTS the best (aka how many arguments the judge gets on their flow per minute). I love watching people do what they love and I love to learn, so feel free to do whatever as long as you're confident you can communicate your argument to me and teach me something.

I will not make arguments for you, something has to be on the flow and I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Also along those lines, dropped = true, but you have to tell me WHY IT MATTERS that they dropped it. Otherwise, I'll be frustrated.

If you make any argument vaguely related to behavioral or decision science there will be at least a small part of me that gets really excited, especially if it's psychology related.

My high school experience would land me squarely in the "policy" camp, but y'know I'm here to watch you do something you love so don't stop doing what you love because you're afraid I'll drop you on principle. I read big stick policy affs my first two years in high school, then ended with my senior year reading a soft left aff I cared about and going for the cap k consistently (was a 2A, switched to 2N). Also, I discovered that I like Ks more after finishing my undergrad and returning to debate.

T --

I default to competing interpretations, usually because reasonability is incorrectly debated most of the time. Reasonability applies to the definition, not the aff, that is, is your definition something a reasonable person thinks that word means. Please go slower on T. Don't spread it like you would a card because I'll miss half your standards and everyone will be sad at the end of the debate. Probably especially you.

K --

I'm most comfortable with cap and security. Pomo usually makes me want to cry because it relies so heavily on jargon. If you can successfully explain your kritik with minimal (preferably zero) jargon, I am 110% here for that. However, I am not heavily versed in the lit. The same goes for identity Ks. I love a good identity debate, but I'll need additional explanation because I do not read the lit. Psychoanalysis is a) a pseudo-science, b) written by Freud and I just disagree with what he called "science," and c) is usually not deployed well in debate. I will vote on it, but I'll be sad.

The alt better solve the impacts of the kritik. Otherwise, everyone will be sad.

Also, it'll be difficult to convince me to exclude either the aff or the k.

If I haven't made it clear enough, I hate jargon. It's a crutch and to me, usually functions as words to freak the other team out. My main issue with kritiks is that the theories behind them are usually deployed poorly in debate and come off as an attempt to confuse or intimidate the other team. I am intrigued by the theories behind most Ks, so please explain your argument to me, I'd love to learn more about your theories.

Planless affs --

Look, I went for f/w consistently. I can be persuaded either way, but everyone has to do explanation otherwise I'm going to be sad. Specific analysis of each other's arguments makes the debate better for everyone. I'd rather see a negative strategy engaging with the thesis of the aff rather than framework. For the love of debate and coherent RFDs please explain things.

Aff, labeling your DAs is nice and all but "Sarcophagus DA" makes me sad. That tells me not a lot about the DA and honestly, you probably could have made the same argument without labeling it as a DA. Also, if you show that there is a role for the neg in your world of debate, I am much more likely to vote for you.

Rejecting debate altogether will probably make me sad.

Neg, fairness can be won as an impact in itself, but can also be an internal link to other stuff - e.g. there's a distinction between fairness as a competitive incentive and fairness in terms of education. Make your analysis specific to the aff, don't just read the blocked-out version that your coach gave you.

Topic-specific planless affs actually make me really happy. There was an identity team that I debated on the education topic that had a beautiful model minority aff without a plan and I loved that debate. If you can teach me, great.

CP --

I love me a smart counterplan. Be it a PIC or winged in the 1NC because of a card in the 1AC, if it's smart and kinda sneaky I love it. However, don't be awful and read a lot of one-liner counterplans because that ends up being a waste of paper which will make me sad because I like trees. Plus that sucks as a 2A and I'll listen to theory.

Process counterplans are cool IF THE PROCESS MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT OF THE AFF. Throwing a process CP at an aff and hoping it sticks is bad. I'll listen to process theory, but it usually isn't a reason to reject the team. These just get kinda tricky so you'd better have a darn good explanation for competition and a legitimate net benefit that isn't contrived and just kinda awful *insert snarky GBN comment here*

2 advocacies, you're fine. 3, you're probably still okay. 4 is pushing it, but if you have a really good reason you might be able to pull it off.

Disclaimer, since I was a 2A for a while, I am sympathetic to theory. However, I usually default to reject the argument, not the team (add reasoning for this please please please if you spread theory I'll be sad).

Theory (because it fits under counterplans best)-- I will just about only vote on condo unless it's something that is never answered but is impacted out. Please, if I have to vote on intrinsic bad or severance bad for a perm you do not go for because you forgot to say "reject the argument not the team solves all of their offense," I will be SAD. Seriously, could be the LAST SPEECH OF THE ROUND AND YOU DROPPED IT THE REST OF THE ROUND BECAUSE IT WAS BLIPPY and I'll grant "reject the arg not the team."

DA --

The more case-specific the better. I am a fan of storytelling and if you can coherently explain link chains and internal links and have it sound more plausible than some DAs sound, I'll be happy.

I feel like I have to mention politics DAs at some point in this. I love politics but gut check yourself, don't pick your most obscure scenario, and hope the other team doesn't have answers because if it's that obscure, a good 2A will wipe the floor with you with just analytics.

For economics, please understand the economic theory behind your disad. I studied econ and I enjoy these arguments, but they're bad disads when not understood or executed poorly. Hopefully it's not an issue this year.

Also, case turns are good. Really good.

Email: tahafanaswala@gmail.com

Background;

Debated for 4 years at The Barstow School in high school, and for 1 year at the University of Southern California.

Quick Note on getting easy Speaker Points from me and Spreading;

1) If both teams agree to NOT spread before the round and tell me so, then everyone gets +1 speaks. If any team breaks this agreement, then that team will lose the round.

2) If one team does NOT spread throughout the round, while the other team does, the team that did not spread will get +1.5 speaks

3) If the non-spreading team beats the spreading team, the non-spreading team will receive 30s.

In general, if you want me to flow an important analytic or theory arguments, then you should slow down (60-70% speed). The same is true of tags. I have a relatively high bar for clarity, and if it doesn't get on my flow, then it didn't happen. I'm NOT saying you shouldn't spread, but you should spread with a mind for being relatively clear. This is ESPECIALLY true of permutations and theory args.

Summary of Paradigm;

I've debated mostly policy arguments throughout my debate career, but I do understand the basics of kritiks and will vote on them. For the AFF, I've only ever read policy AFFs, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote for a K-AFF as long as you defend how debate would be like under your vision. I really value teams that can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR.

Affirmatives;

I've really only defended policy affirmatives throughout my career, so this is where I feel most comfortable. By the 2AR (or even the 1AR), there really should be only a single story/impact scenario that you're going for. I don't have a preference for extinction or structural violence impacts, so both sides will have to settle this issue for me.

For K-AFFs, I think that if you can defend your model of debate, than you will win. I think both education and fairness are equally viable impacts for the NEG (or even the AFF depending on how you contextualize your impacts). K-AFF v K debates are something that I haven't really done or judged in before, so if you're NEG, Id recommend either going for T/FW or a simple kritik like Cap.

Counterplans;

I'm down for most CP stuff, even if you don't have a specific solvency advocate (obviously, its better if you do). This being said, if you're gonna read a CP without any solvency ev, you'd better extrapolate in the 1NC how you solve the AFF, rather than explain it all in the 2NC. If you can do that, I'm more likely to view the argument favorably than a generic CP.

Kritiks;

I have debated and gone for a few kritiks, so I am familiar with the basic structure of a K. If you're going for a K, I think you need to clearly explain the thesis of your kritik and in what way it indicts the logic of the AFF. The less buzzwords you use, the better. If you're defending against a K, I think you should first win the AFF is correct and defend your assumptions and how they're made.

Additionally, I prefer links that are not descriptive of the status quo, and would like the explanation of the link to be pertinent to what the AFF does, i.e. "The AFF does X or says Y, which is representative of Z", rather than "The AFF uses the United States federal government, which is bad for A, B, or C reasons"

Topicality;

I am not familiar with the structure of this topic or any popular definitions, so if you debate it well enough, you can probably win any interpretation in front of me.

Theory;

On condo, I largely think that the NEG should hold themselves to no more than 3 conditional off (arbitrary preference). I think the NEG can defend more conditional advocacies and the AFF can say 3 or fewer condo is bad.

I hate getting into more complex theory debates like textual/functional competition, so the NEG should really try to keep their CPs as theoretically kosher as possible

I default to theory args are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, unless specified by the AFF.

Miscellaneous;

• Please don't read new off in the block unless the 2N justifies it
• Don't run theory args purely for the sake of reading theory args (talking specifically about stuff like 10 second ASPEC shell in the 1NC

Put me on the e-mail chain - aegoodson@bluevalleyk12.org and annie.goodson@gmail.com

**I'll be honest, I'm writing my dissertation right now and have done less reading on this debate topic than any other year I've been coaching. Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific literature you are reading.

Top Level:

I'm the head coach at Blue Valley West. I tend to value tech over truth in most instances, but I 100% believe it's your job to extend and explain warrants of args, and tell me what to do with those args within the context of the debate round. I expect plans to advocate for some sort of action, even if they don't present a formal policy action. I won't evaluate anything that happens outside of the debate round. This is an awesome activity that makes us better thinkers and people, and when we get caught up in the competition of it all and start being hateful to each other during the round (which I've 100% been guilty of myself) it bums me out and makes me not want to vote for you. Be mindful of who you are and how you affect the debate space for others--racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in you losing the round and I won't feel bad about it.

Delivery:

Clarity is extremely important to me. Pause for a minute and read that last sentence again. Speed is only impressive if you are clear, and being incomprehensible is the same as clipping in my book. I'm generally fine with [clear] speed but need you to slow down on authors/tags. You need to speak slower in front of me than you do in front of a college kid. Slow down a few clicks in rebuttals, and slow down on analytics. The more technical your argument, the slower I need you to go. I won't evaluate anything that's not on the flow. Please signpost clearly and extend warrants, not just authors/dates. Good rebuttals need to explain to me how to fill out the ballot. I'm looking for strong overviews and arguments that tell a meaningful story. We often forget that debate, regardless of how fast we are speaking, is still a performative activity at its core. You need to tell a story in a compelling way--don't let speed get in the way of that. Going 9 off in the 1NC is almost always a bad call. I'd rather you just make a few good arguments then try to out-spread the other team with a lot of meh arguments. I think going a million-off in the 1NC is a bad trend in this activity and is often a bad-faith effort to not engage in a more substantive debate.

T:

I default to competing-interps-good, but I've voted on reasonability in the past. Give me a case list and topical versions of the aff. If I'm being honest I definitely prefer DA/CP or K debates to T debates, but do what you enjoy the most and I will take it seriously and evaluate it to the best of my ability.

Performance-based:

These are weird for me because I don't have as nuanced an understanding of these as some other judges in our community, but also I vote for them a lot? I'm not the best judge on these args because they're not my expertise--help me by explaining what your performance does, why it should happen in a debate round, and why it can't happen elsewhere, or is less effective/safe elsewhere. I have the most fun when I'm watching kids do what they do best in debates, so do you. Know that if the other team can give me examples of how you can access your performance/topic *just as meaningfully* through topical action within the round, I find that pretty compelling.

CPs:

These need to be specific and include solvency advocates, and they need to be competitive. I'll defer to just not evaluating a CP if I feel like it's not appropriately competitive with the aff plan, unless the aff completely drops it. I think delay and consult CPs are cheating generally, but the aff still needs to answer them.

K:

Assume I'm unfamiliar with the specific texts you're reading. You'll likely need to spend some more time explaining it to me than you would have to in front of another judge. One thing I like about this activity is that it gives kids a platform to discuss identity, and the K serves an important function there. Non-identity based theoretical arguments are typically harder for me to follow. K affs need to be prepared to articulate why the aff cannot/should not be topical--again, TVAs are really persuasive for me.

DAs:

Love these, even the generic ones. DAs need to tell a story--don't give me a weak link chain and make sure you're telling a cohesive story with the argument. I'll buy whatever impacts you want to throw out there.

Framework:

Make sure you're explaining specifically what the framework does to the debate round. If I vote on your framework, what does that gain us? What does your framework do for the debaters? What does it make you better at/understand more? Compare yours to your opponents' and explain why you win.

General Cranky Stuff:

1. A ton of you aren't flowing, or you're just flowing off the speech doc, which makes me really irritated and guts half the education of this activity. You should be listening. Your cross-x questions shouldn't be "Did you read XYZ?" It's equally frustrating when kids stand up to give a speech and just start mindlessly reading from blocks. Debate is more than just taking turns reading. I want to hear analysis and critical thinking throughout the round, and I want you to explain to me what you're reading (overviews, plz). I'll follow along in speech docs, and I'll read stuff again when you tell me take a closer look at it, but I'm not a computer with the magic debate algorithm--you need to explain to me what you're reading and tell me why it matters.

2. 1NCs, just label your off-case args in the doc. It wastes time and causes confusion down the line when you don't.

3. The point of speed is to get in more args/analysis in the time allotted. If you're stammering a ton and having to constantly re-start your sentences, then trying to go fast gains you nothing.....just......slow down.

4. You HAVE to slow down during rebuttals for me--other judges can follow analytics read at blistering speed. I am not one of those judges.

5. In my old age I have become extremely cranky about disclosure. Unless you're breaking new, you should disclose the aff and past 2NRs before the round.

**Clipping is cheating and if I catch you it's an auto-loss

**Trigger warnings are good and should happen whenever needed BEFORE the round starts. Don't run "death good" in front of me.

I use this scale for speaks:http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

Anything else, just ask!

I'm a second-year debater for the University of Iowa who wants to be on the email chain (hunterhurt55@gmail.com)

Primarily I see debate a space for competitors to hone skills and find new ways to understand the world around them. As such, I think that it is up to the debaters to define what is and is't important in deciding the round. What follows is a series of unorganized thought I have that might help you debate in front of me:

I am willing to vote on/listen to any argument you're willing to present, i will reward smart argumentative strategy and punish messy or contradictory strategies, especially those which rely on an element of in-round performance or representation.

Dropped arguments are true, dropped claims are not

In general, the more realistic your impact, the happier I am

I'm a sucker for clever cross-applications and strategic concessions as I think they demonstrate a more holistic understanding of the debate and how arguments interact with one another

I flow, and generally appreciate, cross-ex. However, an argument made in cx is more persuasive if anchored in an actual speech.

T/Framework - Obviously I would prefer a debate in which the negative responds to the argument made by the 1AC, however I understand that many 2As try to make that as hard as possible. That said, I am much more persuaded by skills/education than fairness impacts but remember to explain how these skills/education make the world a better place.

Experience:

I debated for Iowa City West high for four years and qualified to the TOC with four bids last year. I'm currently a freshman @University of Minnesota but I'm not debating. I'm currently coaching Edina High School, beginning this year.

T/L:

• Put me on the email chain: chiragjain2000@hotmail.com
• Hardcore policy debater, so anything policy is WONDERFUL for me
• Tech over truth -- but if the other team drops something you have to mention it and expand upon the argument and explain it. But small dumb one liner theory arguments are an exception --- the opposing side better explain why the arg was so tiny and useless that a late answer is justified.
• Speak fast but not too fast --- I have to be able to understand nearly all words, and flow them --- if I fall behind on flowing because of a lack of clarity or because you're too fast on analytics/theory/topicality, its on you
• If you're running anything kritikal other than capitalism or security: slow down, cut all jargon, explain everything in a VERY detailed manner that makes intuitive sense, and hope for the best lol

DAs:

• Framing contentions are never the way I expect them to be --- both sides have a lot of internal links and there's a decent chance that you link equally to the Kessler/Connetta/Yudkowsky card. Any arguments about BIAS however make sense to me --- if you isolate a bunch of different biases I have, and then put that with some really good impact defense and a bunch of COMPLEMENTARY jabs at the internal link chain of a DA then you have me pretty well on your side against the DA.
• Cards like Olsen, Cohn, etc about how there's NO risk of big impacts or that things like the aff are ALWAYS deprioritized so this time we just gotta make up for it, then get em outta here
• I love disads, especially agenda politics disads
• Cards have to be highlighted well --- I don't want some trash cards that don't say what they mean --- that's a speaker point reduction
• Pls do turns case analysis

CP

• I also love counterplans. I love process counterplans but if you're aff go for theory lol (I have a high bar for that though, it better be a good 2AR) but not much of a bias either way on the theory question for that. Agent counterplans, consult counterplans, all of that stuff is good with me. Advantage Counterplans + Impact Turn strategy is like the best thing ever.
• Please do a good job explaining why you solve each advantage and actually answer all the solvency deficits
• No judge kick unless you tell me to

T

• To be honest I LOVE topicality but also most teams do a terrible job running it
• I'm gonna flow straight down and hope for the best --- make sure you get everything important at the top of an argument and make it easy to flow for the judge
• Eh T LPR is iffy but ill vote on it any day just debate well
• Your evidence is important hella
• Please show me the model of debate you produce and make good 2NR/2AR framing arguments --- show me what sort of core controversies we lose in one or another model of debate

Ks

• I explained this earlier but…not a fan…
• If you're running neolib/cap or security I'll likely have a higher level of understanding for your argument but…the odds I vote for you in face of a decent aff answer….low :(
• Pretty much other than those I think I think alternatives are often not feasible and the aff in the interim is a good idea (Delgado 9 where u @, read this card, +.1 speaks)

K Affs/FW

• I'm not the right judge for you if you run a K aff
• I voted for it once. It was a sad day. FW hack right here, please debate framework well and do line by line better than the team that runs a k aff --- you can do it! @the neg
• My ballot means nothing more than saying who debated better in the round
• Run good case arguments @the neg
• SSD is so true
• Clash = best impact

Theory:

• I always wanted this in judge paradigms so here we are
• Please give me good framing arguments in terms of your model of debate and what sort of things it includes/what they exclude out that is important
• Condo: Its good lol throw in 8 counterplans idrc, 2As can be efficient
• Process CP Theory: Aff leaning but I have a higher bar for a good 2AR on Process CP theory
• 50 States: Aff leaning
• Agent CPs: Neg leaning but I think you can win perm do cp if you're vague enough
• International Fiat: On this topic its stupid --- aff leaning --- but also I'd love seeing some International counterplans

Speaks:

• The way you present yourselves matters so much --- silence between speeches unless you're talking to the other team or me --- communication between partners is sketchy, I don't wanna know that you're on FB Messenger, quick speech-flashes but if its taking time I want it to be obvious that you aren't stealing prep, dropping flows everywhere and a bunch of messy stuff is going to lose you speaks
• +.1 for reading Delgado 9 when its relevant
• -.1 for sending Google Doc links because online word is a thing
• -.3 for playing music before the round because its obnoxious and disrespectful sometimes
• +.1 for sending a good policy debate meme in every speech doc (+.1 total)
• -.1 for sending a bad policy debate meme (-.1 per bad meme)
• +.3 for an I-Law aff
• If you're still flowing upto 15 seconds after the speech just to get the arguments down that’s fine imo --- if you're still going beyond that is a -.1 for every 10 seconds because you've gotta be cheating
• If I perceive stealing prep, automatic -.5 --- make it clear you're not stealing prep (not verbally lol, in your actions)
• Anything offensive (racist, sexist, offensive to a marginalized group, mean, rude, etc) = Automatic 0s, we stop the round, and you lose

Brian Kennett Policy Paradigm 2017

btkennett@gmail.com and YES I want to be on the chain.

Who I Am?

Great question! I’m so glad you didn’t ask! No really, I credit who I am to High School and college debate. While I didn’t learn everything from debate, I did learn most of what I think makes me tick. I’m thrilled you are here. That’s where I enter every round. I’m a dad, but I’m not a “dad” judge. Debate paid my way through college and took up most of my time for over 7 years. I love this so much that I volunteered to coach novices despite the fact my kids weren’t yet interested. Hopefully I’m changing their minds. Maybe you can help me? **UPDATE: One of them has fully come around :) ** I pride myself on trying hard to only judge the facts presented and argued in the round while acknowledging there aren't really many true tabula rasa judges in existence. #unicorns

What Do I Care About?

I value good solid argumentation and logic. Period. I will listen and flow almost any argument if you can properly articulate it and support it with evidence. If your opponent can’t convince me it’s not valid and offer evidence to support that position, you will almost certainly win. I am not part of the debate. I will not consider evidence or lack of credibility if not presented. I don’t view that as my role in the room. You won't likely offend me with an argument. You MAY offend me by not properly arguing it.

What Do I NOT Care About?

Look....I'm a former CEDA guy from the Pacific NW. I do not inherently believe that debate should be kept in a box, nor do I believe that there is only one way to do it. I believe that the primary function of the activity (outside of its pure educational value) is to examine issues from multiple perspectives. If you choose to examine the topic through performance, the kritik, or some other means....as long as you do it well, I'm likely game. To that end, I'm VERY unlikely to vote on topicality simply because you tell me there's not a plan text or that they aren't being "fair." Y'all know what you're signing up for. None of this is unexpected. (or rarely is it)

How Do I Feel About Speed?

Here’s the deal…as long as you know what you’re reading, can accurately annunciate, signpost well, and don’t annoy me with trying to read way outside of your capability….you’ll be fine at any speed. I do appreciate email threads. I do occasionally ask for cards if I’m not familiar with something. All I ask….be a communicator. This is, at its core, an argumentation and communication activity. If I stop flowing and give you my best annoyed look….I’d slow down and start communicating. This is especially true in the rebuttals.

What About The K?

See above, but I will say that if you are reading something unique, make sure you understand it and can explain it well. I am not an expert on all of the literature. I have read a bunch, and I hear a lot, but don't assume I (or anyone else) knows what you are trying to say. Do your job in the round.

What Are Your Biggest Pet Peeves?

I'm so glad you asked! I can come across as a little arrogant. All good debaters are. I’m not, however, a tool. It’s a fine line. I get it. But if you are abusive, rude, or generally a jerk. I won’t like you. It will be somewhat hard to overcome. You will be at a distinct disadvantage. Don’t do it. Be nice to each other. Have fun.

Dropped arguments brought up in the 2AR....just don't do it.

Mean People.

Rude People.

Email: pranavk1016@gmail.com (add me to the chain)

Experience: Debated policy at Iowa City West for 4 years as ICW TK. Qualified for the TOC twice and broke at the TOC once.

Short version: I will try to minimize any preconceived notions and solely rely on in-round analysis so run what you are best at. Although I would rather listen to cp + da debates, I am open to well-executed kritik debates. If you are going to win a kritik debate in front of me, assume that I have no knowledge of your theory(because I probably don't) and give concrete examples to prove your point. Finally, clarity & efficiency>>>>>speed.

General:

I prefer arguments based on concrete examples, data, and logic. I can be convinced otherwise in a debate if a team challenges this mindset.

Look up at me during the round. It should be pretty easy to tell whether I am understanding and following your argument.

Evidence comparison is extremely important in deciding debates. In close debates, leaving evidence comparison to me will bring in my subjective judgments so frame your opponents evidence during the speech. If you are going insert a rehighlighting of a card during a speech that you want me to look at you must read it. You cannot just say that the rehighlighted card is in the speech doc and move on. On that note, please highlight your evidence properly. This means full sentences with all of the warrants that you extend in the debate. I will not read past the highlighting if I call for evidence.

Tech>truth in most cases. in most cases, I will stick to my flow and prevent any intervention. For me to evaluate an argument, it must have a claim and a warrant. Additionally, telling me the implication of arguments will tremendously help you.

Mark cards clearly during your speech. If I ask for evidence at the end, make sure to give me the marked version.

I'm a high school debater at the Barstow school, I have been debating for 3 years now. 

Aff

I like it when the Aff team has good impacts that they explain and extend through the whole debate.

I don't mind a K Aff as long as you explain it and make sure that the Neg team and I understand what is going on.

Neg

I don't mind a K as long as you explain it and make sure that the Aff team and I understand what is going on.

When you are explaining your impacts make sure you make the links and the impacts of your arguments clear.

I will vote on whatever as long as it is explained. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just names. Don't be obnoxious or rude, this leads to immediate loss of speaker points.

-paradigm is essentially arranged from most to least useful to you so if you're reading and start feeling like it's no longer helpful for prefs or pre-debate adaptation you could probably stop bc it'll only get worse lol

-please put stephenlowep@gmail.com on the chain

-I really like when debates start on time. If your 1ac is on the wiki I don't see any disadvantage to sending it out before start time so that you can start speaking at start time. You don't have to start reading the 1ac as soon as its sent. You could send it as soon as you get the pairing and then just start reading it at the start time. I get not sending if its a new aff.

-please send a doc with the ev you want me to read after the round

-I try hard not to intervene in any way(note abt this at the end)

-best t-usfg impact for me is fairness. It doesn't matter to me a bunch if debate is valuable for clash type reasons bc we are all here afterall. We are doing debate for some reason however varied those reasons may be.

-best aff way to beat a fairness impact in front of me would involve winning some kind of subjectivity change. If aff can win a solvency claim for any kind of impact like racism or war then the aff will probably end up winning. I just think it's really hard to win that solvency claim given how important competition is to debate.

-I will provide clarification abt an argument if asked during your own speech or anyone’s prep time, e.g. I will answer “did you flow conditionality bad?”

-i encourage you to challenge my decisions if you disagree. I'd rather hash it out and have someone's opinion change than mutual disagreement. I don't take it personally and I won't judge any future debate based on what has happened in a previous one.

-if never mentioned judge kick is okay(and this means judge kick of individual planks if the neg says they can kick planks)

-i will reject the argument and not the team unless the aff explicitly argues their non-conditionality thing is a voting issue before the 2ar

-i lean towards competing interps over reasonability

-i lean limits over precision

-competition over theory

-perms aren't advocacies but perm do the counterplan does demonstrate that the aff could be implemented in such a way that there is no net benefit

-perm double bind seems to make a lot of sense absent the neg winning framework, but if the neg wins framework it seems they can win by convincingly criticizing the aff

-i suspect I care about impact uniqueness more than most

-i try not to be visually reactive. i don't want to effect the decisions you all make

-any questions at all ask over email. I believe you should have the opportunity to know enough about me to strike me if you'd like

-I think a lot of speaker points/my general disposition in debates is driven by how interested I am in what's happening. I'm more interested when both teams are reading a lot of cards and there's a high rate of arguments being made. Bold choices are also fun like impact turning in latter constructives, 2nc counterplans, etc. You shouldn't do these things just bc you have me and I like chaos but if it serves some strategic purpose go for it. Like I'm better for ev that's less highlighted, lighter explanation, and higher breadth strategies than most.

---non-intervention note

What I'm trying to say here is I will try hard not to dismiss an argument because it clashes with my personal beliefs or because it's offensive or anything like that. I'm not going to vote against any kritik, any style of death good, or pretty much any argument at all just because it was read. I will intervene on some line by line issues if the debating forces me too. For example if there is a t debate where both sides are making internal link arguments about education but they don't directly clash then my hand is forced and I will have to intervene to decide which internal link is better. Similarly there are certain arguments that don't require responses not because they are ideologically bad but because they are logically incoherent however this is rare. I will not vote for an elections DA if the election has already happened and I won't vote on a DA to space elevators if it's been read against a CJR aff. This isn't because I'm offended or am truth over tech or something. This is because these DAs are simply not arguments that prove I should vote neg whereas most death good args or kritiks are. Like if every part of these DAs were true by virtue of concession the most they could prove is that space elevators cause extinction or that the aff would've shifted an election which can be true and all but I couldn't possibly explain to a team why it means they should lose.

---other note

Everything below has nothing to do with how I judge debate. I’ve had a lot of conversations with high school debaters and I think many could benefit from reading what’s below. It’s not THE TRUTH but it’s my thoughts and I think some people may be able to get something useful out of them. I don't think reading what's below will help you with prefs or anything though.

-I enjoyed most of my time debating. I stopped debating because I wasn’t enjoying it. There were still times when I did debate and I didn’t enjoy it. After all there’s more to life than a search for what brings the most enjoyment. People who climbed Mount Everest didn’t do it because it was fun. They did it because it was Everest. Still, debate is a lot less cool than Everest and that’s also worth remembering.

-I recently learned that me quitting was evidence that I lied about my commitment level to debate. Commitment levels can change overtime. It seems the best thing I could do for the team and myself was stop. This was informed by people I spoke to on and off the team that advised me this was true. I’ve been a lot happier since I’ve stopped and my former team has been incredibly successful. This seems like a win-win to me. I don’t think anyone should feel any obligation to stay in what is in all reality an extracurricular club that they don’t enjoy because at one point in their lives they enjoyed it and they told other people they enjoyed it.

-Any monetary rewards I received from competing in debate were far outweighed by the money I spent attending tournaments on food, transport, and registration costs. I never got scholarship money in high school or college or for attending camp but I do get paid to judge/coach debate. I didn’t do debate as a survival strategy. I did it because I thought it was fun and I liked being good at something. Maybe the benefit of the connections and skills I’ve acquired through debate made participation a financially good decision. It’s impossible to say.

-I don’t know all of the different factors that can make someone’s relationship to debate unhealthy. I don’t know what it means in any clear sense to have an unhealthy relationship to the activity. I do believe there are people that are in debate that have intense anxiety and depressive episodes related to their participation. I’m not subtweeting here. This is just a thing that happens in debate. This seems bad but I’m not a doctor and I’m not saying you should stop if this is the case for you but it’s worth thinking about what you get from debate.

-There are a lot of interesting people in debate. Not all of them want you to feel good or feel good themselves. Being a good debater doesn’t make someone an admirable person. I don’t think there’s a negative correlation either but debate is an activity that selects naturally disagreeable and competitive people. Debaters hang out with other debaters and often times will not have good friends outside of the activity. Good and bad debaters want to hangout with good debaters. Outside of debate people want to hangout with people who are fun to be around. Being good at something is not a sustainable strategy for building strong relationships with other people.

-I also don’t think being a good debater means you’re any smarter. There are a lot of smart people that do debate but I don’t think there’s any reason to idolize debaters who are competitively successful as being ultra intelligent. Being really good at debate will cause people to believe you’re really smart and it may cause you to believe you’re really smart but this isn’t the same thing as being really smart. The flip side of this is that if you aren’t good at debate, you shouldn’t stay up at night wondering if you’re good enough. You are good enough and you would’ve been even if you had never heard of debate in the first place.

-No one becomes famous from debate. There are some debaters with famous parents but that fame came from elsewhere. People in debate will know of other debaters. Almost no one outside debate will know of any debaters. Even less people care. There are also other non policy debate events like mock trial, model UN, parliamentary debate, and even LD. Policy debaters like to make fun of these events but its worth remembering that however little we know about these things, people outside of our activity know even less about policy debate. My point is that there are far better ways to chase clout than convincing college students and high school teachers to tell you that you won an argument with other high-schoolers.

-Debate is not a game about logic. It’s a game about convincing another person to vote for you. There are some people who are trying to treat it like there’s always a right and wrong decision but there’s not. Different people have different ways of coming to conclusions and there are infinite arguments to be had about who won a given debate. There are logical games that exist like chess where there cannot be arguments about who won. Debate is not one of these games.

-Debate is not the most useful thing you can do for college applications. It certainly helps but there are far better activities to leverage in a similar way to debate if getting into an elite college is your goal. Again, debate helps but I wouldn’t recommend committing to debate purely as a strategy for college applications especially given all of the aforementioned baggage.

-debate is not separate from the world. It is in the world. One thing abt the world is that people with more money have an advantage over people with less. There is a reason the same schools are consistently good at debate in both college and high school. There are other things in debate that probably matter that can’t be controlled by the people that are both helped and hurt by these factors: race, gender, sexuality, etc. Debate is not an escape from these imbalances. I think it should be. I don’t think these imbalances should exist in debate or the real world. I don’t think any decision anyone will ever make in any debate will change this.

-I don’t know if debate participation is decreasing or not. People tell me that it is. If debate can’t successfully make a case for its own existence and usefulness to high school students then I don’t really know what the point is. That doesn’t mean I like this trend. I would prefer if debate grew. I think debate is better when it is bigger and I like debate.

Speechdrop.net is strictly superior to email chains for in-round file sharing, but feel free to contact me via Kalen.pop@gmail.com

I've been involved in policy debate since 2012 and a coach since 2018, currently Head Coach at Iowa City Liberty High School. By day, I'm employed as a sentient Politics DA. (Journalist with a major in political science.)

TLDR: I'll vote on anything you can make me understand. I love DA/CP/Case debates, I'm not a bad judge for the Kritik, but I've been told I'm not a great judge for it either. Speed reading is fine in the abstract, but I do hold debaters to a higher standard of clarity than I think many other judges to. Speed-reading through your analytics will guarantee I miss something.

Detailed Paradigm: everything below this line is background on my opinions, NOT a hard and fast rule about how you should debate in front of me. I do everything in my power to be cool about it, check bias at the door, etc.

Speed Reading: is fine. But don't spread analytics, please. 250 WPM on analytical arguments is really pushing it. I know that some judges can flow that fast, but I am not one of them: my handwriting sucks and is capped at like, normal tagline pace. Otherwise, you're free to go as fast as I can comprehend. I'll yell "CLEAR!" if I can't.

Policy stuff: Yeah of course I'll vote on disads and counterplans and case arguments and topicality. Are there people who don't?

CP theory: Listen, I'll vote on it, but I won't like it. I strongly advise that theory-loving 2As give warranted voters in the speech, and that 1ARs do actual line-by-line rather than pre-written monologues.

Kritiks: are pretty rad, whether they're read as part of a 12-off 1NC or a 1-off, no case strat. I want to be clear, though: I REALLY NEED to understand what you're saying to vote for you with confidence. I find a lot of very talented K debaters just assume that I know what "biopolitical assemblages of ontological Being" or whatever means. I do not.

K affs: are fine. I myself usually stuck to policy stuff when I debated, but I'll hear it out. You should probably have a good reason not to be topical, though. Some people have told me I'm a bad judge for K affs, others have told me I was the most insightful judge at the tournament. (More have told me I was a bad judge for it though, for what it's worth.)

Other debate formats:

PF: PF is traditionally about being persuasive, whereas policy is about being right. If you can do both I'll be impressed and probably give you a 30. Otherwise, I feel like I have a more or less firm grasp on your activity, but I certainly don't have all of its norms memorized.

LD: I have no idea how your activity works and at this point I'm too afraid to ask. Whoever successfully teaches me LD debate will get an automatic 30. Please dumb your Ks down for me, I'm a policy hack.

Congress: Listen, I did one congress round in high school and left it with 0 understanding of how it's supposed to work. If I'm in the back of your room, it means tabroom made a mistake. Because of my background in policy debate, I imagine I'll be biased in favor of better arguments rather than better decorum.

Top level:

Be nice, if you say anything rude then I will vote you down. Don't be arrogant and you will be fine!

I am pretty good with any type of argument, but if you are running a K YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THE LIT AND WHAT THE ALT DOES, okay I lied I'm not the best for these args but if you are not comfy going policy then don't change your strategy because of me

I find myself leaning more neg on condo and 50 state fiat but i can be swayed if they are straight up abusive.

Debate is good, death is bad

I love a good states CP debate with a solid net ben, but if its something dumb like consult attorney generals then I will be more sympathetic to aff theory

Also topicality, I can be swayed with basically anything just handle it like a DA, prove why your interpretation is best for debate

the DA, internal link chains need to be warranted and fleshed out, love me a good aff specific DA

--Senior at Glenbrook South HS -- my email is sabinaroberts481 [at] gmail [dot] com

*** Everything below is meant to provide you with an idea of how I view debate, but I would much rather listen to you execute a strategy you are familiar with well than you over-adapt to some of my predispositions. I tend to be a very expressive judge - take that as you will. I will dock speaker points to rude debaters. ***

Kritiks: Sure. I like explanations of your k on a thesis level as well as how it interacts with the aff. K affs are not my favorite, but judge intervention frustrates me as a debater, so I am wary of it while judging. Procedural fairness is True, but I do have a high threshold for voting on it. I also think topic education is dope and underutilized. I think there should be a role of the negative in every debate--depending on the aff, that might mean a counterinterp might be a better 2ar strategy than solely an impact turn to T. Tell me what my ballot does/doesn't do.

Theory: <3. I randomly enjoy theory debates if well executed. I've been both a 2A and 2N so I'm totally down to vote on theory on the aff or let the neg do whatever they want. It just depends on how it's debated.

Topicality: See the 2N/2A thing above--I've defended barely topical affs and my favorite 2NRs were also T. I love a good T debate either way. Reasonability is just true but no one explains it well or goes for it enough.

Speaker Points: I believe I am someone who gives generally higher speaks. I reward debaters who are kind, funny, and smart. CLARITY is super important to me! I literally cannot emphasize that enough. Remember that speed doesn't matter a ton if you are clear and efficient. (I feel you, slow debaters.)

If you add me to the email chain without asking, I'll give you extra .3 speaks.

*** Quotes from coaches that I vibe with ***

"Fairness is the only thing I care about. It's both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for you and a standalone impact. It isn't that I don't think debating government policy is not useful for other reasons, but you only have 5 minutes in the 2nr to prove that your model of debate is a valuable one." -- Jon Voss

"In my experience as a debater and judge, ignorance of tech resulted in a callous dismissal of arguments as “bad” and increased judge intervention to determine what is “correct” instead of what was debated in-round and executed more effectively. That said, truth is a huge bonus, and being on the right side makes your task of being technically proficient easier because you can let logic/evidence speak a little for you." -- Tyler Thur

"Is Fem IR beatable? no" -- Scott Phillips

"Flow." -- Michael Greenstein

Iowa City West '18

Dartmouth '22

email: ethan.trepka@gmail.com

haley.turner@barstowschool.org PLEASE include me in e-mail chains

I am a former high school debater. I participated in policy debate at Barstow from 2012-2017, and I have judged many policy rounds.

AFF: I want warrants in rebuttals - don't just extend names, tell me why I should care about these things. I prefer plan texts. I am open to all kinds of debate, but I think the debate should start by addressing the topic, how that looks is up to you.

NEG: I will vote on Theory if it is well explained and not dropped. No need to keep 5 off case into rebuttals, kick out of args if you are losing them GO FOR YOUR STRONG ONES, rebuttals should focus on 1-3 off. I weigh case first, (no need to weigh off case arguments if case has not been addressed) so do not forget to address case arguments.

I will vote on anything, as long as it is explained. I like Ks if you can explain them (DO NOT ASSUME I HAVE READ THE LITERATURE) and if your opponents and I understand what is going on. Analytical arguments are GOOD, don't just let args drop. WARRANTS ARE A MUST, I want to hear how you interpret these things, not just authors. Please don't attempt to change my mind during my RFD. Do not be obnoxious, rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or offensive in any means. This will lead to immediate loss of speaker points and probably loss of the round.

masonlwang32@gmail.com

Predispositions

More flexible, went for policy and K strats tho mostly neolib/case specific Ks. With a critical strategy, make your links specific - I like rewarding good research. I lean a bit aff on theory for extremely generic or questionable counterplans cuz these debates are less fun.

Important Stuff

Dropped arguments are only true to the degree to which they have met their burden of proof. The validity of an argument that was poorly constructed in the first place doesn't increase to 100% after the other team says nothing.

Slow at writing and flowing, slow down on T

Clash is important - a lack of depth on certain points is fine as long as the argument is understood, don't like rearticulation

Some examples of this:

1--When teams don't really listen to or attempt to understand cross-x questions and give and explanation of something else

2--when the neg makes an argument like "no impact to econ decline", the aff says "we're not econ decline", and the negative reads their pre-written extension that has five reasons for why econ decline doesn't cause war, then answers the aff argument.

3--impact calc that isn't comparative. what's the point of giving an overview if it doesn't tell me about the round

K links that are like "the affs neg state action relegitimizes the aff's ability to determine which state actions are bad" isn't persuasive on its own - needs to be coupled with historical context or examples

I won't presume that a counterplan solves a part of the case unless given a solvency argument. (doesn't have to be evidence, can be inferred from the text if it's obvious enough)

Speed and Flowing

I have a low standard for beating dropped arguments that were almost impossible to flow in the first place.

Make our tags clear enough to understand in the time that you say them. I am not your judge if your strategy involves reading 2 paragraph tags and expecting me to read them carefully in order to understand your argument. I flow in lines and not paragraphs

Speaker Points

Content > delivery for points, like creative strategies. Also I think some teams are deterred from reading new/creative arguments because they're afraid they won't be able to be as smooth on them. I liked watching Jeffrey Ding, he was awesome, he basically went like 1 wpm.

don't delay the round

I debated for ICW and got 4 bids + won Dowling + Caucus. Debate is fun to think about or entertaining to watch, so make it one of those two

major speaks boost if you get me out of the round as quickly and easily as possible. no need for overkill, just make it clean. If it's a super easy to understand why you're winning and I don't have to put a lot of effort into thinking about it then major speaks boost.

Every minute of prep not used is +.1 speaks for the team not using it, same w/ speech time