As a former policy debater in both high school and college, I place a substantial emphasis on the impacts of your arguments. References to historical events may help your speaker points but do not themselves establish any impact to your argument.

I flow very carefully and therefore place a premium on organization. The more you outline your contentions into subpoints, the easier it will be to flow the eventual response (or to extend the argument if there is no response).

While I do not mind speaking "efficiently", unless you are very diligent about identifying the arguments you are refuting, I would strongly caution against outright spreading.

I am not particularly keen on theory arguments. With respect to kritiks, I am more inclined to accept these arguments if (i) there is some rational relationship to the topic and/or (ii) the topic is relatively obscure, in which case I will allow for more flexibiity in "generic" arguments.

Finally, courtesy is a virtue, and I look very disfavorably upon those who abuse the ability to ask questions as a tactic to "fluster" the opponent. If a speaker simply refuses to take any questions whatsoever, it will be reflected in their speaker points.

I am a lay judge with a 4 years judging parli, as my daughter does debate. My pronouns are she/her.

I try my best to flow, but please speak slowly and clearly to make the experience easier for me. Do not spread! I will not understand you and I will not flow. Overall, please be respectful and never condescending to the other team and remember that debate is an educational platform.

Please focus on applicable argumentation rather than just theory, as that can ruin the educational aspects of debate. Use theory only when absolutely necessary to protect the debate space. Frivolous theory will not help your case. Explain all theory thuroughly and politely. This extends to arguementation as well; Make sure to thoroughly explain your arguements and their importance. Structured and impactful arguments usually win the debate for me.

Good luck and enjoy the process!

As the parent of a senior in speech and debate, I have three seasons of judging experience. While I am confident in the decisions I make, I will be the first to tell you that I am not a college judge. I will attempt to make a flow chart but often find it much easier to just listen and take notes. For that reason, I value a good, well-constructed argument with a clear road map and a few well-defended points. If you have seven sub-points in your sixth contention, I promise you will will almost certainly be lost. For this reason, I would also appreciate if you slow down and speak clearly if you want to get your point across.

I want to remind you that I am a true blank slate so if you begin your debate by discussing an acronym such as NAFTA or APEC and you don't define it and its purpose in a sentence or two, I will spend the rest of the time wondering what you're talking about. Take a moment to lay out your speeches with context and don't assume I know. Sometimes I do, but I always appreciate the full story. I really value logic but don't mind some creativity if your contention is a hard one to make. I am always equally rooting for both teams to do well. I know the effort and stress that comes with each match and so I feel equally protective of both sides. Because of this, I urge you to be respectful of your opponent.

My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

I compete in college debate, I primarily read policy arguments, but I'm familiar with Kritiks and high theory arguments. I'm willing to listen to any argument you have/want to read as long as it has a well explained link to the affirmative or the resolution. If the argument is more nuanced I suggest you spend more time on it as I will be hesitant to do the work for you at the end of the round. In order to win you should be able to give a clear picture of links to flushed out impacts. It's too often I see a team read a tagline like "poverty is the impact" then move on. Explain why it matters and how to weigh it against other impacts in the round and you stand a much higher chance of winning. As long as you can attach some reason to vote on it and give it actual impacts, you shouldn't have this problem.

Theory: I am willing to listen to it no matter how strange it is, it just has to have voters in the same way a disadvantage needs impacts. Don't blip out "this is bad for fairness and education" and then move on, spend time explaining how it impacts fairness and education in the round, then explain why fairness and education matter.

I will default to competing interpretations as a means of evaluating theory if there isn't another method given by either team.

Speed: I don't have issues with speed, but I ask you to respect others when they ask you to clear or slow.

Partner communication: I'm fine with it to any extent. I'll only flow what the speaker says. If it gets excessive I will punish you in the form of speaker points, especially if it is rude interjections, but it won't be a voting issue.

Non-Topical Affs: Not impossible win, but I expect some justification for not being topic. Just saying "We wanted to" is not enough.

I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account, as well as how you interact with your competitors before, after, and during the round.

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. Quality over quantity. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect are fine.

Former high school debater, primarily competing in parli, impromptu, and extemp. Competed in top tier of California league and invitational parli, coached at SNFI, and judged at a variety of invitational and league tournaments, primarily in parli, but also in PF and IE's. Go whatever speed and make whatever arguments you want - I'll listen to most anything at any level of theory, but if you make an argument that seems especially weak, I'll be more likely to accept refutations to it with less effort. I'm expressive as a judge - use that. Just want to watch some good rounds, learn some new things, and hopefully laugh a bit.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

Hi. I’m a lay (parent) judge currently working in a legal field. I decide based on the strength of the contentions to affirm or to negate the resolution and delivery of the arguments and counter arguments to support your contentions and to refute your opponent’s contentions, based on the facts, relevance, logic, and how convincing the overall contentions and arguments are. I like creative, unique contentions as long as they are relevant and sufficiently developed. Not a fan of spreading or other technical stuff. I look forward to seeing a good debate.

In general I should be considered a lay judge. I have a history with Speech and Debate as well as a background in political science, but I prefer debaters that can communicate with a diverse audience. I used to say that I was okay with fast talking, but found that students would either start to spread beyond my comfort zone or speak incoherently. I theoretically am open to all T and K arguments as I think policy debate gets stale after one year of the same debate. I have to warn all debaters though that I do not often vote for them as they are often presented as either a time suck or with unclear components.

Stock Issues: I know this is very basic, but my favorite debates are the ones where the AFF presents a well researched plan with clearly labeled stock issues and relevant evidence. The NEG then can bring up relevant DAs and convince me that the plan is somehow flawed. The debate should be sign posted, clean on the flow, and use logic or evidence to address all points of contention with one or more responses.

Counterplans: Most CPs are on the table as long as they take into account uniqueness. If you want to adjust the timeframe, there needs to be a compelling reason. There needs to be a clear piece of evidence about the harms of doing something at a particular time. The same logic applies to consult CPs, give me specific evidence about why your proposed org is better. AFFs should avoid the perm. Just argue the CP (weigh agency, timeframe, etc.). Likely unpopular: I don't like the 50 states fiat. There are legitimate reasons as to why a federal actor is uniquely important, depending on the situation. The only time 50 states unanimously adopt a policy is when its federally mandated ( feel free to tell me if I'm wrong). Mobilizing resources to fund a plan is different than mobilizing 50 state governments to incorporate an uniform policy.

T/K: I am never sure how to accurately convey my position on these arguments. I think in a perfect world, they are mechanisms that bridge educational/institutional gaps between debaters. However, I rarely vote on them because of poor links and labeling. The shell should be outlined somewhat like stock issues. Let me know the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. It should be noted, "education" isn't a voter. You have to tell me what education does for us outside of the round. If you're running topicality, you should do your best to address your opponents case. Too many times I have heard students run topicality and spend 8 full minutes talking about how they had no time to come up with an adequate response. Not only is that speech terribly repetitive, it seems self defeating. Topicality should be used to bridge legitimate gaps in research, but even in the worst case we are all still capable of debating with logic. A legitimate K will demonstrate an actual barrier that prevents a contextual discussion.

Oversimplified ex. I don't like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of more pressing impacts. Oversimplified ex. I do like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of specific reasons that prevent/affect a contextual discussion of the plan.

Extinction Arguments: The more steps/links it takes to get to Nuclear War the more likely you are to lose me. The argument needs to have uniqueness and probability.

Evidence sharing: This is wildly unpopular, but I do not believe that judges should be on the evidence chain. While there are occasions where the actual card in question is unclear, debate is about the speaker's ability to read, evaluate, and respond to the opponents evidence. When judges look over evidence they expose themselves to bias. Additionally I have found when I look over evidence, I start to make arguments for students myself. The best way to avoid this is to not get involved at all. If your opponents' evidence is poorly written, power tagged, etc. TELL ME. Read me the quote in question with your interpretation. That is the best way to evaluate these disputes.

Decorum: I absolutely do not need us to treat each other like we are in MUN. However, we need to set basic rules of respect. Ex, one speaker accuses another of cheating because they have a disagreement over interpretation is definitely disrespectful. Not only does that kind of behavior unnecessarily aggravate your opponents (or even your teammate I have seen), it makes me feel as though the character judgement is intended to manipulate judge perception.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

Circuot wise, I'm generally a bit rusty; judged a bit last year and before that was actively involved in 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 6.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists across Congress/Speech and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but personally believe the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

I'm a debater for El Camino in my first year. I have a fair amount of experience with everything except for kritiks. I judge off of what's on the flow, so if something is said during flex then I won't make my decision based on that. Also don't spread, because once again if I can't flow it then it, for the most part, it won't affect my decision. I'm a fan of theory, so long as it makes sense in the round. Lastly, make sure you signpost. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: send to shayansaadat0@gmail.com

I'm a pretty straightforward, laid-back judge. I vote based on who I think made the best arguments and responded to their opponents' arguments best. That being said, here's a few things to know when it comes to the debates themselves:

Theory: I am receptive to and love good theory positions. I believe that most resolutions have an implicit bias that leans toward one side more than the other, and that a team can easily abuse resolutional wording to skew other teams out of the round––both aff and neg. Explain your theory position and why it matters to the debate as a whole. That being said, I strongly dislike bad theory. Don't run bad T-shells or Kritiks if they aren't relevant to the round. Debate the resolution, not the definition of a single word in the definition of the definition that the PM used. It's irrelevant, doesn't get you any ground, and takes away from the debate as a whole.

Spreading: Spreading is totally okay with me. However, I am more than open to arguments against speed. If you are too fast for me I will say, "Slow" or "Clear," and I encourage other debaters to do the same.

Organization: Please, please, PLEASE signpost. It's the best way that I, and others in round, can follow your arguments. Good organization makes good debate. Tell me where you're going in your arguments so I know where to flow. If I don't know where/how to flow what you're saying it will hurt your chances of winning.

Communication: Partner to partner communication is fine. Puppeteering is fine. In any case I only flow what the person supposed to be talking is saying. I also only flow what is said during round, not in between speakers, or at any other time.

Impact Calc/Round Vision: Concisely impact out your own arguments. Do the work for me. Tell me why your arguments matter. Explain to me why your arguments are right and your opponents are wrong so that when it comes to voting I don't need to make any reaches.

I also won't disclose speaks.

TL:DR if you debate well, you'll do well.

Always include me in the email chain'

Email: israel.debate.email@gmail.com

Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN

Speaker Points:

I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech.

Spreading:

I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed.

Basics rundown for Policy

Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.

Case: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.

CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.

DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.

Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. I'm fine with performance, narrative, etc. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.

Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.

You decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.

High school experience is Public Forum and Parliamentary debate.

I debated for for El Camino College for two years. I mostly compete in parliamentary debate, as well as some speech events (informative, impromptu, extemporaneous).

I am fine spreading as long as it doesn't effect your ability to communicate your arguments effectively. Also don't spread and sit down with time left. I enjoy good theory arguments. I like voters and impact calculus in the rebuttals. Tell me why you are winning and where to make it easy for me to vote for you.

I have very few preferences other than the following:

- Accept POI's where possible.

-Signpost and to be as organized as possible; even if it takes away from rhetorical flourish, be organized.

- I like warrant comparison and impact calculus. please don’t just repeat your constructive speech in the rebuttals. Give me something new. I prefer impacts weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability (not in that order), but if you think structural impacts are more important I'll go with that too, just tell me otherwise I'll default to what I prefer.

- Above all have fun with it and enjoy yourselves!

After debating at the national level in high school, I broke at major tournaments debating for UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. My professional orientation informs my debate judging with a real-world orientation. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Two of my teams reached the NPDL top ten. Now, volunteer debate judging is my way to pay forward the gifts I received from debating, to which I attribute my successful legal career.

I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.

Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.

Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices may circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument, but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.

I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.

Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.

On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.

Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.

I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.