Please add me to the email chain: epdal@umich.edu

Pronouns: He/Him/His

O/V

Sophomore at the University of Michigan

Debated all 4 years in HS (2 years 2A, 2 years 2N)

Low topic experience

Short

I was a more policy focused debater in HS, this means that I do not have an innate understanding of the kritik you are running (except for things like Cap, Security)

This does not mean that I will not vote for Ks, just that you will have to explain it

I probably lean a little neg in Framework/T-USFG vs K aff debates

Impact comparison is super important, as is judge instruction on what the most important parts of the debate are

Long

Kritiks — I have not really read a lot of the lit which means that the explanation and application of your theory will be very important, if I am unable to understand it, it makes it a lot more difficult to vote for it/realize why you are winning

K affs — I’ll vote for them and try to be as impartial as possible while judging these debates, that being said, I probably lean a little neg on T-USFG in these rounds

Topicality — I think that legal precision probably outweighs debatability, if the topic is bad it isn’t the aff’s fault. Please extend a violation and standards in every speech you are extending T, even if they dropped it.

Theory — The neg does a lot of shady things with CPs, don’t let them get away with it. I will default to whatever people say/win on whether to reject the argument not the team, winning reject the argument is probably a lot harder on condo debates than others.

The case debate is very important, especially if you are not going for a CP. It is a very underutilized area of debate and a good job debating case will earn you good speaks.

Make the ballot easy — impact comparison and judge instruction will get you far in close rounds, tell me where I have to look first and why it is the most important or I will have to default to the other team’s instruction/figure out myself what is important

Dropped arguments are true arguments to the extent that they have a warrant and an implication (i.e. i.e. "They dropped circumvention" < "They dropped circumvention, Trump can use 49 other programs to sell arms to that country, means the aff can't solve permanently”).

I’m 95% tech over truth, blatantly offensive things like sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated.

Postround me all you want — just be respectful and understand that at the end of the day I will not change my decision. I will do my best to explain my decision to you, and answer your questions.

Run whatever crazy strat you want, ultimately debate is a space where we can all talk about cool topics or things that we are very passionate about/interested in and have fun.

If you have any more questions, just email me at epdal@umich.edu

P.S.

1—You only have to explain what the rehighlighting says and insert it --- if you want to read it, that's up to you but I don't think you have to (and if you do you don't have to explain it, its just a card at that point)

2—The number of conditional words that a multiplank CP with all planks conditional generates if N is the number of planks is (2^N)-1, if you're actually interested, ask me about it

Policy debater for West Des Moines Valley

I almost exclusively read critical positions, but I'm chill with anything as long as its warranted and impacted out well.

Policy

LD

I'm cool with K debate (identity, high theory, whatever), but err on the side of over explanation or try to explain it in policy terms.

I do like larp debates, but make sure that there is real clash between the aff plan and the neg, especially if the neg goes for a CP DA strat.

You probably (definitely) shouldn't read tricky or dense phil affs in front of me.

Slow down on theory please...

If you have any questions, just email me, derveshvalleydebate@gmail.com

I flow cross-ex now :D

My name is Brogan Kirkpatrick (He/Him or They/Them). I debated for 4 years for West Des Moines Valley. Of that, I did Policy for 3 years and LD for a year in between.

Email: brogank42@gmail.com

In general: I see debate as a sport (as it should be qualified as). I'll try to minimize my involvement in a round, but I will step in if there's bigotry or extreme hostility going on. There's rhetorical strategy to being aggressive, but I'm substantially less willing to vote for you if you're being offensive. You WILL NOT get the ballot if you're intentionally offensive/dehumanizing to your opponent. Luckily for me as a judge, I've never had that happen, but it's there so we're clear if it does. I'm good with most spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'm familiar with most common strategies in debate. I was primarily a K debater, but I've also read framework, tricks (sorry), and a good nuke war impact or two. If you have any funky new strat that you're looking for the right judge to read in front of, I'd love the honors.

I'm about 50/50 on tech vs truth; I try to default to tech though.

Policy: This was the format I did the most. I'm well enough learned on all K debate but the highest of high theory. That being said, it's still a good idea to limit (or at least explain) your use of K-specific lingo. I've been out of debate for a couple years now and might not know what you mean. I'd like the framework debate to be clear and emphasized. You probably know the K debate better than me. As for more traditional, plan-based debate, it's great if the link chain is done well. Rarely is there anything more satisfying than being convinced that flying drones over bears will lead to a nuclear war. As for theory debaters, be unique about it. It's fine as a tool for clarifying abuses, but when you read the same shells almost every time, it's abusive and annoying. Even something as small as telling a little story about how this round was uniquely impacted by abuse is enough to make your theory args shine. Also, please don't tell me to gut check unless it's the ABSOLUTE LAST CASE SCENARIO. I hate voting on a gut check, and probably won't.

LD: Even though I mostly did policy, my primary aff was Kant. Most of my arguments were heavily inspired by LD-esque strategies. I'll vote on tricks in higher level debate, but don't like to in novice level. Spikes can be funny, but also annoying if that's your only strat. Ditto the info from above.

hello, I'm Ondrea (she/her/hers) and I am a freshman at the University of Iowa. I debated policy at West Des Moines Valley.

Put me on the email chain. ondrealidebate@gmail.com

Spreading is fine with me but if you aren't clear, you should probably just slow down.

Tag team cx is fine.

zoom: do not start if my camera is not turned on. I am NOT there.

Read whatever you want, as long as what you say isn't xenophobic, racist, sexist, or homophobic etc. If that's the case, I promise you will receive L20.

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.

Cliff Notes

-yes email chain: gshardadebate@gmail.com

-College freshman. Not doing college debate, but passively involved.

-Did policy debate in high school for 3.5 years from 2017-2020. Went to Mich 7 week twice (CCPW + BFHPRS). Participated in the 2019-20 TOC (Arms Sales). Did not debate in the second half of the 2020-21 season (Criminal Justice Reform).

-Coaching Iowa City West this year in my free time, but not too deeply involved.

-Have judged 5 debates on the Water topic.

-Have judged 5 varsity debates.

-Have judged 14 novice debates.

-You will benefit from going just a tad bit slower than your usual speed this season.

-Keep in mind - I might be inexperienced with the topic/judging, but I am experienced with policy debate.

-More experience with policy stuff than K, but not a hack, and think the division between the two is overstated

-List of generic 2NRs in order from safest to riskiest: Process CP + Politics + Case, Process CP + internal net benefit, Politics + Case, topic K, Impact Turn(s), Topicality.

This is assuming all were equally well prepared and debated - if you either are significantly better prepared or have more practice with one of these, you should probably stick to that.

A specific strategy would be a better bet than any of these.

-That said, I really do find impact turns of all kinds pretty interesting, including spark and death good - but don't read racism, or any other -isms good unless you want negative infinity speaks

-I do not hesitate to vote on "cheapshot" arguments (assuming a complete argument was made, even if blippy).

For example - if the 2AC dropped an ASPEC argument in a T shell and it looked something like:

"Not specifying an agent beyond the USFG in the 1AC is a voting issue (claim) for fairness and education (impact) because it allows for 2AC respecification which spikes out of agent-based arguments (warrant)"

Then I am likely voting neg so long as they 1 - have the same claim, warrant, and impact in the block and the 2NR and 2 - sufficiently respond to "we get new 1AR responses"

A 1NC shell more incomplete than that OR not meeting the above 2 criteria = I will happily vote aff instead.

-Recent high school debaters that I found to be the most persuasive and would give very high speaker points who have videos of them debating online so you can see what I mean: Rafael Pierry (Monta Vista PS), Dhruv Sudesh (Monta Vista PS), Aden Barton (MBA), Giorgio Rabbini (North Broward MR), Nicholas Mancini (North Broward MR), Grace Kessler (Washburn Rural KP).

-I'd prefer if you demonstrated a basic level of respect for everyone present. Not doing this is the only way to get very bad speaks.

-Tech > Truth / my personal beliefs - but I want to write a helpful paradigm, so I've included the section below.

How you can adapt if you're:

1. Aff

a) Policy aff

vs DA

Do impact comparison I guess. Some judges really hate certain DA's like rider or something, but I'm not so rigid about this, so theoretical objections to DA's need a deeper explanation than "the DA is nonintrinsic so it is not intrinsic and non-intrinsicness is a voting issue".

vs CP

I HATE it when the 2AC spews a bunch of made-up solvency deficits that are just not in the evidence. This is one issue where I really care about evidence quality. Limit yourself to a few, good deficits instead of many non-sensical ones because otherwise when the 2NR says "this is not a real deficit" I will be persuaded regardless of your spin.

I have voted aff on the only condo debate I've judged so far, so it is not a bad choice.

Against a process CP (whatever that means), these are your most persuasive arguments for me (best to worst): a carded solvency deficit, perm + model of competition (functional + textual > functional only), offense, a theoretical objection alone (without a perm + model of competition).

vs K

You should have a defense of the aff separate from its fiated consequences to use as offense vs the K in case you don't win the framework interp of weighing the plan vs the alt - otherwise just don't lose framework, win a deficit to the alt, and win impact comparison = I will probably vote aff

vs T

Reasonability is a viable strategy but you need to at least make a race to the bottom/substance crowd out argument. If all the 2AC says is something like "prefer reasonability -- good is good enough", you're probably not going to win it because this doesn't have much of a warrant or an impact (unlike the ASPEC example above).

Soft left affs

You should absolutely invest in framing. Obviously, you need it to win vs an extinction DA. I will likely be persuaded for evaluating consequences so don't go for deontology or something. Critiques of magnitude times probability alone are also insufficient absent a viable alternative (I haven't found most to be persuasive, but still this is better than telling me to ignore consequences). However, simply saying the risk of the neg's existential scenario is exceedingly low to the point it should be disregarded (Think: Infinitarian paralysis, butterfly effect type arguments) is pretty compelling. There is no persuasive way to actually reduce the risk of the DA except making substantive defensive arguments. This doesn't include conjunctive fallacy, but it could include reading evidence that broadly says the risk of extinction is low. Coupling that with regular DA answers will be best, but I don't think it's necessary.

Overall I will make my decision very similar to how Brandon Stras would (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=41283). TLDR = framing-centric.

b) K aff:

vs T

The most persuasive approach for me would be to have a real counter-interp and win the neg's fairness stuff is just fluffy word salad and your model solves real impacts that theirs does not.

vs K

I don't have much judging experience with these debates so basic things like organization and clear line by line will be vital if you don't want me to get lost in the sauce. I would evaluate these pretty similar to a plan vs CP+DA debate where the alt = CP and links = DAs. Impact comparison would matter if you're saying the alt doesn't solve your offense. Explaining how the perm solves each of the links is important.

2. NEG

a) vs Policy Aff

-K

Absent any instruction, I will evaluate the plan vs the alternative (i.e. the world if the plan happens vs if the alt happens). If you don’t want me to do that, that's fine, but you absolutely need to make it very clear what you want me to do - ideally in the form of a framework debate. If you win an alternative framework, then mitigate any aff offense that isn't about it's fiated consequences and I will vote neg. If the aff wins plan vs alt, then you need to win your alt solves their impact OR your impact outweighs theirs on face.

-T

I don't "default to precision" or whatever. Ideally, you'd have justification for whether precision/accuracy matters most or debate-ability (aka limits/ground) matter most - And unless you win your interp is better on both fronts, this is what my decision will be based on - but absent any instruction on this I will just evaluate their combined risk of offense to make a decision.

You should have a coherent argument for why reasonability is bad, defense to causing substance crowd out, and impact comparison between the two.

-CP

Be liberal with your use of fiat.

I feel pretty confident evaluating most competition debates.

Answer condo seriously.

-DA

I don't have much to say here. Good for generic stuff. Do not really have a super high bar for ev quality generally here (unless told otherwise).

-Case

I probably have a soft spot for good, in-depth case debating... who doesn't?

-soft left

framing please (see under 1. Aff -> soft left for more details) - I would vote aff in a CP+DA strategy where you lose framing and the CP doesn't solve 100% of case (aka zero deficits) - but I would vote neg if you win framing and a non-zero risk of the DA even without any mitigation of aff offense

b) vs K Aff

-T

I'm not a fairness hack so don't be deterred from a skills impact. Overall, I don't have a strong preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter

1 - requires you to explain fairness well (I've seen debates where I'd be underwhelmed by the neg here, although never judged one myself)

2 - win a much higher level of defense to aff arguments

Lastly, if the aff is reading a plan and a counter-interp then you really should invest in winning a violation instead of just asserting one in the block

-K

This can be a strategic choice - Just don't make it super messy in the block please - I'd prefer you have a few clear links/pieces of offense instead of a bunch of shoddily extended arguments/streams of consciousness

Misc

I tried to write a paradigm following advice from https://the3nr.com/2011/09/02/judge-philosophy-guidelines/

flow

cowardice will be punished

I strongly dislike offcase positions

every word that is unclear is -1 speaker point

Add me to the email chain:
vwoolums@gmail.com

Background:
I debated for Iowa City High 1989-1993 on the prisons, space, and homelessness topics then graduated early. I won lots of rounds and speaker awards. I didn't debate in college because life happened otherwise. I hold BA degrees in English and Political Science with a lot of incomplete Master's level work. I work a full time project management job in the aerospace industry, enjoy bicycling and spending time with my seven year old son. Since 2009 I've been the Director of Debate at Iowa City High and enjoy coaching both casual and highly competitive teams. I am very familiar with the criminal justice topic.

New:
Not using the President's* given name in any form will slightly increase your speaks.

Tl;dr

Policymaker by default. I vote on well constructed, true arguments presented in a technically proficient manner. I'm not the best judge for you if you're an advocacy, narrative, performance, or project team.

Before the Round - VCX:
I'm primarily a policymaker, but I also think stock issues are important. It's my deeply held belief that policy debate requires a plan text and that Affirmative teams should employ the USFG through its subsidiary agencies as actors, as directed by the resolution. My preferences are case debate, counterplan/disad debate, solvency mechanism debate, core K debates.

There is a place for every argument and story, but I'm not convinced that the following belong in policy debate: narratives, performance, personal advocacy, and/or projects. I'm open minded, and don't disinclude the aforementioned out of hand, but if it helps assist in your selection of judge strikes then I don't think I'm very well qualified to judge these debates.

I'm fine with core kritiks, including but not limited to cap/neolib, colonialism, gender, and security, but stray into the margins of philosophy, psychology, semiotics, sociology, etc in front of me at your peril.

I demand in-round decorum. Rudeness and ad hominem fallacy will NOT be tolerated. Debaters who militarize their identity to the point of excluding others will not do well in front of me.

I suppose I'm at odds with the community in that I favor of 'truth over tech', as you will need to win the technical side of debates with truthful arguments to gain my ballot. I can't in good faith hang a ballot on evidence that may be several years old and is no longer a factual representation of the status quo, which is particularly important on this years topic.

You should ask me for clarifications of this entire judge philosophy AND ask any other questions before the round. Absent your questions, I will assume that you have read and understood this philosophy. For example, if you have to ask me "do you take prep for flashing speeches" anytime after the start of the 1AC, well, just don't do that. If you ask me during 1AC CX "hey do you allow tag team CX" then expect your points to suffer. Always ask questions before the round begins. Always. This includes specific questions about my voting threshold etc for any particular arguments you wish to deploy that aren't discussed below.

CX:
I prefer you ask and answer your own questions. I require politeness during cross ex. Cross-ex isn't Crossfire. I flow CX and consider your answers to be binding in all forms. CX is the most important and underrated speech in policy debate.

K's and Framework:
We are participants in policy debate; hence, policy debate briefs -- similar to those that are written to assist theoretical policymakers in making critical policy decisions for the United States federal government -- provide the stasis point for our arguments, which requires scenario analyses geared toward solving real world problems and not simply rejecting or refusing to engage the topic.

That said, I'm fine with kritik debates as long as you articulate the finer points of your argument -- like alternative solvency -- in a way that makes sense without relying on debate jargon. For example, if you stand up in a 1NC and read an IR Fem shell but can't answer any questions about it in cross-ex, then I will not be impressed. If you are taking a theoretical or philosophical/critical approach to the topic, then I find it more engaging when you explain your position in clear, non-debate terms. It demonstrates a level of understanding about the criticism that extends well beyond the debate space, and I support that as an educational endeavor.

Similarly, with framework debates, highlight the advantages or disadvantages to competing methodologies in a clear concise way (no cloud/overview clash, use actual line-by-line) and it becomes a lot easier to vote on framework and/or separately evaluate aff and neg impacts. I'm better with discourse, ethical scholar, reps, and that kind of framework and less okay with meta, ontological, or psych frameworks, the latter mostly outside my studies.

Regurgitating debate jargon on complex academic topics that are (sometimes merely at best) tangential to substantive policy debates does not demonstrate to me that you grasp the underlying issues; instead, it tells me you primarily want to win debates and have selected an esoteric critical and/or theoretical position that other debaters aren't as familiar with in order to do so.

Topicality/Framework:
I've seen some fantastic, well organized T debates, and ones that make my head hurt. Go for T, I will vote on it, but keep the refutation and line-by-line clean. I don't have a clear default to competing interpretations or reasonability, so be persuasive. Explain why you meet, or why you're losing ground and exploding limits. I am not persuaded by arguments that disqualify T as a voter or attempt to impact turn T. It's a STOCK ISSUE and always a voter.

Counterplans:
Yes please!, but be invested in them. They need solvency advocates that compete with and test the Aff's solvency mechanism. Perms, likewise, test the competitive structures of the counterplan and are therefore legitimate. I'm not persuaded by severance theory because the Aff doesn't garner offense from the perm. Instead of reading severance, spend time actually addressing the competition between the plan and counterplan. Finally, I don't default to any theoretical objections either aff or neg on counterplans, but cheaty counterplans do exist. For example, is your process counterplan part of normal means? If so, then perm probably solves. Is States counterplan bad? Probably not, because devolution of powers is a thing. Have country x do the plan? Tricky ... there are a lot of countries and likely an unfair burden to the Aff to prepare for all of them. Etc, see below.

Theory:
On the one hand, I prefer not voting on theory; however, if the abuse is egregious, or the claim particularly compelling, then I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for "abusiveness" claims. On the other hand, I can easily be persuaded that Condo is bad if, for example, a 1NC reads six+ off, of which three are conditional counterplans/kritiks, and then the 2N has the audacity to whine about a 'blippy 2AC'. I have, in fact, voted Aff on Condo! Otherwise, no memorable RFD's on theory. While the Aff carries the burden of winning their case, the Neg has a similar burden to shape the discussion. It's my opinion we learn more by digging deeper into a smaller set of arguments rather than learning very little about many.

Speech and Prep time:
Set up an email chain before the round.

I run a speech and prep timer.

Cross-ex starts when the speech stops, unless either team asks for prep before CX. Prep starts immediately following CX ends unless the next speaker indicates they're ready and a speech has been sent. Otherwise, I stop prep when you have sent the speech.

I'm going to get on a soapbox here. If you use Gmail, then be sure the "Undo Send" feature is off. Then, during the time we're all waiting for the speech to arrive - unless you are the speaker setting up a stand for your laptop, taking a drink of water, etc - everyone in the room should be DOING NOTHING. No looking at your flows/backflowing, no typing on the computer. No separating out your 'card doc' from speech doc. There is a terrible amount of mental prep time stolen between starting CX after getting flows together and waiting for emails, etc.

Further, I support tournaments moving forward with "decision time" because these small minutes of delay really drag a tournament. At any tournament with decision time, I will begin the round promptly at the start time regardless of whether a team is present or not.

Speed:
Generally, I'm fine with speed. I flow on a laptop and type ~80wpm. I'm okay with most things speech-related provided I can audibly differentiate your tags, cards, cites, and analytic arguments. This is particularly true of overviews and 2NR/2AR (see below), but also of any complex argument like Theory or T. The speech act, for all our outside the round research and preparations, is the purpose of debate. Organizing your speech is vitally important to its persuasiveness.

As other paradigms I've recently read point out: 'cloud clash is not a thing' and 50% or more of your speech spent on an overview is just clumsy and unrefined. Do your work on the line-by-line answering the other team's arguments.

Furthermore, I come from a time in debate when people used numbering systems and "line by line" meant answering all the opponents arguments in order. If you use numbering systems, such as on 1NC case "1. No impact: ...", and the 2AC says "off 1NC 1", then I will be mightily impressed and your speaks will increase dramatically. It's so much easier to flow because the Synergy template auto numbers, which is a beautiful thing.

If I need you to speak more clearly, enunciate, slow down, or emphasize your tags, I will call out for it verbally in-round. You get one call out and after that your partner needs to be watching me to make sure I'm capturing what you want me to capture. It's up to you to crystallize your arguments in a meaningful, rhetorical way.

Lastly, judges aren't AI bots, so don't get mad at us when we don't flow every single word of your gale-force word salad overview. Yeah, I type fast, but if your Rate of Delivery is 300 and I'm at ~80wpm, do the math. Especially true if you aren't slowing down your tags and cites.

The RFD:
Now that you've read this far, in-round experiences account for more than my preconceived notions of debate as stated above, including K's, debate theory, framework, and the topic in general provided you make your case or arguments compelling and don't make me do any of the work on the flow for you.

All things considered, I will render a decision on any well-developed argument.

If you have questions about the RFD, please ask them politely.

29+ speaks:
you should definitely break and probably blew my mind somehow;
you did NOT exaggerate, powertag, under-highlight your evidence, including its warrants;
you made cogent link, internal link, and impact calculus arguments;
you properly refuted the nexus question(s) in the round;
you were really easy to flow, with great intonation, inflection, and cadence;
you focused on speaking coherently instead of technically;
you told a compelling story using well-honed rhetorical devices and true arguments, presented persuasively;
you were polite yet assertive in CX and during your speeches and answered/asked your own questions.

27.5-28.9 speaks:
you did a pretty good job answering all the arguments, but you may have dropped some stuff;
you were too fast or too unintelligible, and didn't adapt to me flowing you;
you didn't do as good a job analyzing arguments as you could have;
you exaggerated your evidence beyond what the author intended, or beyond the warrants you read;
you didn't persuade me, you were snarky or needed your partner's help in CX, etc.

25-27.5 speaks:
you did a poor job refuting arguments, or you dropped whole arguments;
you were unintelligible;
you didn't analyze the arguments or perform a cogent impact calculus;
you used ad hominem arguments or were aggressive either in your speech or CX;
you needed a lot of help answering/asking CX questions.

0-25 speaks
you did something I found egregiously offensive (racism, sexism, other bigotries);
you used fraudulent evidence;
you clipped cards;
you forfeit, or left the debate for any of your own personal reasons.

Pet peeves:
I really don't like when a team interferes with their opponents speech or prep by requesting evidence and/or asking for your flash drive back, or by whispering to your teammate so loudly I can't hear the speaker, or by throwing backpacks, laptop cords around, etc. If these are a problem, then your speaker points will assuredly suffer.

Good luck to all!