I'll tell you in the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I will evaluate Public Forum as if I am a jury of 12 and you all are the lawyers. Pro is the Prosecution and Con is the Defense. What is on trial is the status quo in relation to the topic at hand. Pro/Aff in any debate round advocates for a change. Pro accuses the Con side of creating a risk with complacency in our current condition. Pro must present that change implied in the resolution has lower risk and higher benefits, and do so in effective qualitative ways, as opposed to a quantitative approach in policy debate.

Now, unlike a courtroom, Pro does not necessarily have to prove their side "beyond a reasonable doubt" but instead, "on balance" - which basically means I have to find 51% or more favor to their side. I will look for the Con team to punch holes in this effort and basically convince me that either A) change is not necessary or B) the change the Pro side advocates is bad.

My ballot goes to the side that presents the least risk, and a better future outcome than what their opponents call for.

LINCOLN - DOUGLAS

I judge components of LD in a hierarchy of burdens each debater has to fill:

1) FRAMEWORK - Value first, criterion second. I need to know the "what" of importance as related to the resolution before you tell me "how" that importance will be met in your criterion, and ultimately your case. If either side drops framework, it makes the round very difficult for them to win.

2) AFF CASE, BURDEN OF PROOF - The affirmative is the side advocating change. They therefore establish the arena that everyone plays in. They need to show how their perspective on the case represents the value the best and how that value substantiates a deviation from status quo. I need to see legitimate, topical blocks that fortify framework. Dropped aff arguments are devastating.

3) NEG CASE, BURDEN OF REJOINDER - The negative case has the responsibility to refute proof when aff has met their burden. Silence is consent. The negative cannot simply ignore or blatantly dismiss affirmative arguments, logical substantiated claims and warrants are a must for me to determine an aff point or subpoint has been refuted.

The side that best upholds framework, and also has the strongest aggregate amount of legitimate arguments standing at the end of the round gets my ballot...

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

What I will be looking for from competitors in Congressional Debate is speech structure, relevant, reliable evidence and content uniqueness. Repeating talking points from prior speeches without enhancing discussion of the question is worse than saying nothing. Build onto prior points, refute prior claims, or create new angles of discussion. Be a part of the process, and do not aim to slow it down with parliamentary tricks. Use the procedure to benefit the procedure.

Copied with the permission of Sarthak Garg

Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer. If there's an email chain, prep will stop when the email is sent.

General Information
Be nice and I would prefer that you read what you’re best at and comfortable with. I’m open to debaters making whatever arguments they like as long as it is a coherent argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I will default to evaluating the debate by what was said in the debates and not my personal dispositions.

I also think that it is important for teams to engage with the others arguments. The important thing is to explain your argument but more importantly is to explain why it matters/why I should care, and what I should do in order to resolve the issue, so it’s important to start narrowing the debate down and framing my ballot by the last speeches. I am most comfortable voting for you when you win debates outright, flow-by-flow. Line-by-line and good technical debating are at a premium here. Explain how the arguments you read interact with and short-circuit the arguments the other team is reading/going for. Flexibility, round vision, and adaptation in both argument style and in-round argument selection are things I value highly This will increase your speaker points and minimize the issues I’m left having to parse through after the round.


Brian Rubaie puts it best:
Things to do --
1. Slow down/speak clearly. Fewer/better/longer cards, more explanation. More clarity and popping on keywords in evidence.
2. Start the 2nr or 2ar with what the first 10-15 seconds of the decision would sound like.
3. More case, it's clash-filled and engaging. No ev on the case? Doesn't mean you've got nothing to say; I love analytical arguments.
4. Treat each other well and have fun. No one gets to debate for very long and we all give so much of ourselves. I care deeply that everyone feel welcome and valued.
5. Tell me what evidence to read and why. I value ev quality greatly but don't read much unless it's contested.


Tech/Truth/Evidence
I care very much about evidence quality if the issue gets contested or specific cards become of issue in later speeches. Debate is an educational game, and tech over truth is the fairest way for me to evaluate debates— if you can’t beat timecube or the lizards k, you probably don’t deserve to win. Dropped arguments are true arguments, no matter how stupid they are. But I will not extend arguments for you. Extensions without warrants are not extensions.

Smart Analytics > Mediocre Evidence


Specific arguments:
Topicality/Framework—I like a good T/FW debate from both the aff and neg perspective. It’s important to counterdefine. I will not vote on simple buzzwords like education and fairness without you actually impacting out why that matters (see above section on framing). Impact calculus is a must. Slow down a bit on these otherwise I won’t be able to flow everything.

Theory—Like T, these debates need to be warranted out and impacted. Just reading blocks aren’t sufficient; arguments have to be engaged. Slow down on theory. I don’t have any predispositions for theory arguments so go for it if that’s your thing.

Case Debates—Entirely under-utilized. Too many teams get to weigh the entirety of the aff advantages regardless of how contrived the series of internal links or how poor the solvency mechanism is at solving alt causes etc. Also case debates don’t necessarily have to have cards to be good, sometimes pointing out bad evidence or just making true/smart arguments is plenty sufficient to greatly mitigate the case’s impacts. I really enjoy impact turn debates.

Disadvantages—Fairly straightforward. Do it if that’s your thing. Make sure you have a solid link story. Warranted impact calculus is preferred.

Counterplans—Necessary vs sufficient claims are very smart and good to go for in front of me. I do think a counterplan needs a solvency advocate. I appreciate a well thought out counterplan and if you can get away with a sneaky counterplan, go for it. If you’re going for the CP, I’ll need warranted explanation of why the counterplan solves the aff and is net beneficial to vote for it.

Criticisms—I’ve got experience here but that doesn’t mean you should just throw around buzzwords. Again, line-by-line and good technical execution are at a premium here. Make sure you explain why what specifically the aff is doing is bad, what the implications of that are, what the ballot does to challenge that, what my role as a judge is, and how I am supposed to frame the round. The affirmative team should make sure to challenge role of the ballot/judge and the lens through which I am supposed to view the round. Make sure these are warranted and you engage the other team’s argument when you’re framing the ballot in the 2NR/2AR. Links should always be contextualized in the context of the affirmative even if there are not cards for every link. The more specific your arguments and spin are to the affirmative, the more persuaded I will be to vote for you. There needs to be warrants to all the arguments just don’t say value to life outweighs or ontology first you have to explain why that is true. I think to win a K you usually have to mitigate the case in some way. The alternative is where these debates tend to be the most shallow. Aff teams: challenge what the alternative does and why it would be revolutionary. Neg teams: explain why the alternative can resolve underlying issues/the links to the K and why it would be a good methodology towards X issue.

K Affs—If this is your thing, go for it. A lot of what I wrote in the criticisms section applies here—explain everything, frame my role, and the role of the ballot. If the neg reads framework, refer to the above section on T/FW. I don’t have any predispositions to either side of this debate so warrant and impact everything out. Even though I generally think affs without a plan can be permissable I will still vote neg on framework, if the negative does the better debating. An aff without a plan must have strong warranted reasons that it is justifiable in framework debates in order to win. K affs with a topical plan I think are almost always legitimate but can be extra topical, so you'd be better off reading a specific T argument rather than just extra T. I think a lot of times these affs make large claims that could be substantially mitigated by the negative having a case debate and engaging the aff with reasoned arguments.

Cross-examination—It’s important. A well executed cross-x can substantially mitigate an argument or drastically improve your speaker points. Referencing arguments made in cross-x as warrants or extra links for the DA or K will boost your speaker points and ethos.

Cheating:
"All types of discrimination are prohibited – the debate is a safe space for learning and interaction. Evidence must be presented in an academic fashion. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. I also consider violations of disclosure norms to be pretty lame generally, but I understand the difficulty surrounding enforcement of my personal beliefs about disclosure. Don’t say “new aff” if you’ve read the same aff, but have a different “theme” to one of your advantages."—Brett Bricke

Creds to John Block, Daniel Schexnayder, & Ian Wreny

I'm pretty unbiased. There aren't any big red flags in my paradigms; don't worry. Just make sure you:

A)  Make Sense. Consider me a lay judge. Explain everything thoroughly, in a way that I can understand. If I haven't been exposed to your argument before and you don't explain it in a way that I can understand, then I won't consider the argument.

II)  Are Respectful. Don't be excessively abusive, and don't disrespect your opponent (that goes for your partner, too). This includes Cross-X. Be nice; nobody likes a shouting match. Stay professional.

3.1)  Are Topical. I don't appreciate you going outside of the resolution. While my vote will be largely situational (depends on your execution of the argument), just know that you're less likely to win.

Speed is okay, but no spreading. If you are going too fast, or are incomprehensible, I will try to flow as best I can and tell you to slow down in your future speeches (I may not get all of your arguments down, though).

I like OnCase arguments; generally don't like Kritikal arguments. However, that won't be solely what I vote on. I'll evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

Love,

G. McLaughlin, BHS Honorary President

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

Spencer Shaw Paradigms

Hey. My name is Spencer. Call me Spencer. Cool? Cool. I have debated all 3 main styles of debate, at Bentonville High School, in Arkansas, at a reasonably high level for 3 years. I'm currently a U of A Sophomore studying Criminal Justice, Sociology, and Psychology. I won some awards over the years, I was an officer on my team, etc. Pronouns are He/Him. If your case has a significant reliance on arguments that include sexual assault, please say that before hand.

Formalities out of the way;

I think each style is different enough to warrant it's own section, but the general rules are:

• Spreading is only for CX. Not LD, and certainly not PF. Don't spread if you can't spread well.
• I absolutely must be able to see your case. Email me, use a flash drive, I don't care- get me your case. i will ask for any evidence you wish to present throughout the round and before each speech. because of that, flashing/emailing/otherwise communicating your files/ev is not prep time
• Cross Examination is binding, but I don't flow it. If you want to make an argument based off of Cross Ex, tell me specifically why it's important and why i should evaluate it on the flow.
• Tell me what to vote for. Good God, tell me what I'm doing here. When left to my own devices, although I try and be the most tabula rasa judge I know how to be, I have a preference for conservative politics and for affirmative presumption in LD/CX, and no presumption for PF.
• Debate, though technically what you make it, is a place for change. If you feel like you have to rap or perform or blow up a kiddie pool during your speech to make whatever God-forsaken point you feel is that important, do it. But be ready to have some seriously credible stuff to back it up or I will drop you. My least favorite thing in debate is where debaters try and champion a cause (racism, the feminist movement, etc.) and use it to win without really believing it- Now, obviously, I probably don't know your story or know how much you believe in what you're saying, but I also have a really strong BS meter. If you can't answer questions, I get suspicious. Arguments that target a people group are probably not good.
• I will evaluate abuse. Full stop. I firmly believe that there is the potential for abusive argumentation, questioning, or behavior in a debate round. Trying to make the debate unfair for your opponent is bad form. You can win without unfairly restricting your opponent, if you deserve to win at all. I am a "reject the arg" guy on abuse, not a "reject the debater" guy.

Policy

I debated Oceans, Surveillance, and China. I'm very familiar with the aff cases for these topics. Education is easily my favorite topic by far, so expect me to learn a lot about it.

1AC's/Plans/Advocacies

In novice policy, with extremely limited exceptions, the 1AC should be a plan.

In varsity, do your thing. I don't care. You MUST BE TOPICAL- yes, even in varsity policy, and yes, k affs can be topical, but you need to prove that you are. I will always evaluate Topicality, especially against K Affs or Affs with no plantext.

definitions debate isnt meant to a way to limit your opponent. it is a way to have a baseline so that you dont argue but then figure out you meant the same things. i believe this has been super twisted by all forms of debate.

Impacts

have them, please. every case needs good impacts.

Kritiks

I debated K's for my entire career, K's are chill with me. Make a clear alt, and a clear link. If ever curious, ask me if I've read your authors.

DA/CP

Link hard. Link often. Link well. Impact it out. Make good analysis.

THEORY.

My favorite thing about debate is theory and framework. Read anything under the sun and I will listen to you. Creativity is awesome. Also, Antonio 95 is not a framework argument without analysis.

Speed

I need your case. I will say clear twice and stop flowing. Even if I'm reading your speech as you're saying it, you better actually enunciate.

LD

LD was my favorite style of debate in high school. I debated in Arkansas and Oklahoma, so I have experience with both traditional and progressive debate.

K's in traditional are still cool. Plans are not. CP's are not. Framework is the most important thing in any LD round, progressive or traditonal.

If there is ever a mismatch between you and your opponent's circuit type (e.g traditional AFF vs. progressive NEG), the progressive debater MUST "debate down" to your opponent in order to get full speaks. If you knowingly and purposely (at least by my judgement) attempt to confuse or screw over your opponent via speed or argumentation style, you will get your speaks basically nuked.

PF

I debated PF at the Arkansas TOC 2017. Don't have a plan. Don't have a [pseudo] plan. Don't have anything vaguely similar to a plan. Sit down during crossfire. Be nice, especially in PF.

BQ

Be topical.

sidequest: make a league of legends reference for .5 extra speaks, unless you're at 30 already

sidequest 2: reference any of Brandon Sanderson's novels for the same point value

tl;dr put me on the email chain pls. rylieslone@gmail.com

Introduction:

I debated for three years at Bentonville High School in Arkansas in every style of debate. Graduated in 2017 -- I am very old. I did most of my national-level competition in LD, PF, and Congress, but there is a special place in my heart for CX. Currently a 2L at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Generally, I am open to most styles + arguments. I consider myself to be a strict flow judge so keep track of the line-by-line. Signpost, signpost, signpost (I'll let you do it before you start time but do not abuse this). Tell me what you want me to do! BE ORGANIZED.

Disclaimer: I will listen to most anything. This is your debate. Talk about what you believe in. Be respectful. BUT DO NOT use homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, or xenophobic speech. I do not tolerate disrespect. Automatic loss and a swift report to tab if you cross that boundary. My preferences to specifics are listed below:

Speed

Be as fast as you want, but the second I stop flowing know you are unclear. If your spreading is ridiculously unclear, I'm gonna need a copy of the speech. I LOVE speed but am also totally cool without it. Generally speaking, be respectful of the usage of speed and be as clear as you can be.

Kritiks

I'd like to say that I know most of the commonly used Ks but DO NOT assume I know it without explaining it. It's been a little while. Be clear about your link and give me a really solid impact. Make sure the K alt interacts with the affirmative's solvency. (Shouldn't have to say this, but make sure the K isn't abhorrent - see disclaimer)

Topicality

Topicality debate isn't necessary (and imho is kinda boring) but it is procedurally important if it's brought up. Don't just go back and forth reading and rereading definitions. Give me good standards and voters. Tell me why you win it.

Framework

Framing is important. Your framework (or lack thereof) is what I will use to decide the round. If you don't give me a framework, I'll do a generic cost/benefit analysis. If you're utilizing it, the framework should be continued well into the last speech. Don't waste your time on it, but don't undercover it.

Case

I loveeee solid case debate. Don’t assume I will flow your 1AC throughout the round if you aren’t extending it (b/c newsflash: I won't!). Case debate is fundamental in my decision-making for policy-oriented rounds. That being said, please cover offcase positions as well. Just don’t kick your case to the curb in the process.

Evidence

Make sure your evidence is legitimate. I will call for any card that I (or your opponent) deem questionable and value the integrity of said pieces of evidence. Be cautious of this.

Also - I do not flow cross-ex.

All in all, good luck!

I'm going to assume you read this, but if you have any additional questions before the round email me at rylieslone@gmail.com.

Andrea Sisti

I have teams that participate in Lincoln Douglas, Policy Debate, Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate.

Public Forum Paradigm:

I enjoy a clearly organized debate. Organization is key to maintain clash throughout the round.

SPEED: From my experience, debaters that card-dump and speed through speeches sacrifice a great deal of clarity and persuasiveness that is the fundamental in nature of Public Forum debate. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case when spreading through speeches is not worth the sacrifice. I would rather hear fewer contentions and quality arguments over quantity.

Read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. Also, be sure to provide clear warrants for your impacts. I appreciate big impacts, but it is critical that you flesh out your impacts with strong internal links. Explain and extend and make sure that you emphasize what is most important in the round. Provide clear voters in those final speeches.

Don't be abusive with time. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. Plan your speeches accordingly. Keep track of your own time as well as your opponent's. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times, including prep.

Make sure that your cards tell the same story as what you are saying. If cards come into question and it's fundamentally important in my decision, I will call for them at the end of the debate. I do value the quality of evidence highly in the round. 1 quality card outweighs 5 poor pieces of evidence.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.

Overall, this is your debate so have fun with it and get creative. Best of luck.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

As a Congressional Debate coach, I enjoy rounds with a lot of clash, creative speech structures, fiery speaking, and thoughtful questions. In terms of delivery and argumentation breakdown, I value speeches as a 50/50 split in importance. Delivery and content are equally important in my mind.

I understand you may be hesitant to give speeches early on in the session for lack of clash, but I won't take that into account when ranking. However, as the session progresses, there should always be direct refutation.

Please be passionate in your speeches, but remember decorum and professionalism. Respect your opponents.

Hello lil baby debaters !!!!

heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..

I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.

-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end

-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.

-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say

-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**

______________________

-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful

-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence

-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc

____________________

-- rebuttals need impact calc.

-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning

-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct

_______________________

-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.

-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins

-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.

________________________

-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex

-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.

-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep

-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.

-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read

-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.

______________________

-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!

-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.

--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped

______________________

FOR PF and LD...

-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make

-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it

-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.

-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)

-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches

-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.

-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.

_______________________

Big Questions

-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.

- don't just repeat your case over and over...

________________________

Congress

- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation

- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.

——————————————————-

-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. whitemadisonj@gmail.com

-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won

-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed

-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!