Preferences and Background

experience: I did Policy debate for 4 years, Lincoln Douglas debate for 2 years, and I am currently in my 3rd year of NFA LD at Washburn.

Flow: yes, I will flow the round.

Speed: Fast is fine as long as you are articulating your arguments well, if I cannot understand you I will clear you twice, after that, anything that I miss will be counted as dropped on the flow.

extra: please be kind and respectful to everyone in the round, yelling or talking over your opponent will immediately deck your speaker points (the severity of this occurrence will determine the severity to which your points are decked). Absolutely no discrimination of any kind (racism, sexism, etc.) In the occurrence of discrimination, I will immediately drop the team, no I don't care if you should have won the round, I will still vote you down.

Policy

---Aff---

plan: Please have a plan text (advocacy statements work too for K aff's). unless you explicitly tell me how your aff solves for current damage in the space, I find it hard to vote for affs without a plan text.

solvency: you should have a solvency advocate for your plan, in the event of a "my advantages have their own solvency" case I will take it on a case-by-case basis, however, it is still probably best to have an advocate.

Advantages: honestly I don't have anything in regards to preferences on advantages, I have yet to see an advantage so outrageous that I have questioned whether or not to would vote on it. (this is not an invitation to read something that changes this statement).

Framing: I enjoy a good framing debate here and there, however, your aff doesn't have to have a framing argument. I do think however that a lack of framing from the aff leaves them vulnerable to having to adhere to negative framing, but it is not essential for the aff to read a framing to get my vote.

---Neg---

Topicality: Topicality is essential to ensure that debate is fair for both the Aff and the Neg. I will vote on T if there is proven abuse, however, I will also vote Aff on T for the same reason if the T is clearly an abusive time suck I can, and have been compelled to vote Aff on the T.

Theory/Rules: I like a good theory/rules argument. just make sure it is framed properly, and that you have the whole shell.

Kritik's: I do not mind a good K debate, that said I ask is that you understand what you are reading, I find it hard to vote on an alt that the person reading it doesn't understand. Especially advocacy K's, if it is immediately evident that the speaker is not understanding, or the speaker doesn't actually support the advocacy their reading I find it much less compelling.

CP's: Counter plans are a nice test of competition, just ensure that it is textually and functionally competitve. I personally do not have a preference on topical counter plans, I will not immediately vote a team down for having one, however, if a decent theory position is presented I can be persuaded to vote against a team for having one.

DA's: the same thing as Advantages, I really don't have much preference regarding DA's, just make sure it links to the plan.

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion: Please have a value and criterion, along with an understanding of how they apply in the debate. an explanation of why your value and criterion should be framed before or valued greater than your opponents is essential for this activity. In essence, the value and criterion debate is the cornerstone upon which the rest of the debate is based on. It is hard to win my ballot if you are not winning on the value and criterion debate. Even if the speaker is leaps and bounds ahead of their opponent it is hard to vote for them if the opposing team wins their value and criterion in the round, as it changes the framing of the entire round.

extra: the rest is pretty much the exact same as policy, other than speed, LD should be slow and persuasive, not fast. this activity is intended for depth over breadth. Leave speed for Policy or PF.

Alivia- She/Her

Add me to the email chain cookaliv@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Washburn Rural and graduated in '21, debated on the education, immigration, arms sales, and CJR topics (I was always a 2N). I have not judged a lot on this topic but I think I am up to date enough on what is going on. If you have any additional questions please feel free to ask before the roundAlso these are just preferences, you debate how you want to debate and I am along for the ride

Speaker points: I think I am the funniest person I know, so if you can make me laugh and not overdo it on the jokes that might bump your speaks who knows

Disclaimer: Any acts of discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) and aggressive behavior is unacceptable and will result in an automatic Loss.

Lastly, Don't steal prep or clip cards - I will deduct speaker points accordingly

Topicality- I look at competing interps and whose standards make debate worse or who creates a better model for debate

Counterplans-I'll listen to theory and will default to judge kick unless I am given a reason not to

K- I was mostly a policy debater but I understand a K, but I think you need specific links to the topic and or the aff and you need to prove that your alt can solve. Just reading blocks will not work for my level of K knowledge

DA- I like these, this is mostly what I debated. Impact,impact,impacts are important to me and the calculus is even more so. Also having specific links will get you pretty fair

Theory- I am not against a theory debate if its done well and there are some clear violations

I debated at Washburn Rural High School for 3 years and was involved in forensics for 4 years. I graduated in the class of 2021.

I don't have many preferences for policy debate, I'll vote on about anything but it must be ran well and extended throughout the debate.

counterplans: I'm a fan of counterplans but don't perm do both unless it makes logical sense to do so.

disads: have a clear link and have strong impact, have even stronger calculus.

k: I'm knowledgeable about ks but not the best with them so make the story good, only blocks won't make the most sense to me

topicality: mainly focused on differing interpretations

overall just look for a fun and fair debate, I enjoy clash in cross ex but rude and patronizing comments/behavior will not be tolerated throughout the debate.

email is kalleelynn02@gmail.com

For email chains: snallular2002@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '20

University of Kansas '24 (not debating)

Top Level:

- I have a higher standard for speech clarity than most, especially on theory/analytics.

- The less laptop usage in rebuttals, the better.

- Impact calc, evidence comparison, and ballot framing are very important, and doing this in rebuttals better than the other team is a good way to win.

- More explanation is always helpful, whether in policy or clash debates. Assume I am not familiar with your arguments.

- Have fun in round! I appreciate debates a lot more when everyone seems to be having a good time, and being engaged is a good way to increase your speaks.

- If you are being rude/offensive during a debate round, I will point it out and vote against you if it continues.

Case:

- In depth debate about/explanation of internal links on case is the best way to access impacts on the aff and win case defense/turns on the neg.

- For the aff, I strongly prefer a few well explained internal links and good cards over an advantage with tons of bad internal links/scenarios meant to overwhelm the neg.

- I dislike negative strategies that only address affirmatives with a pile generic impact defense.

Topicality:

- Usually a question of competing interpretations; the affirmative saying "we are reasonably topical" alone isn't an argument, there have to be actual warrants.

- Precision > limits > ground, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

- Make sure to extend terminal impacts to your interpretations if T is the 2NR/2AR.

- Case lists are helpful for evaluating models of debate insofar as they are predictable.

Disads:

- As the negative, explanations of how the links and the rest of the DA are specific to the affirmative are the best way to go.

- For both teams, I'm a sucker for recent uniqueness evidence with actual warrants.

- Impact calc on DAs is very important for both teams (see top level).

Counterplans:

- I err slightly towards condo being good. If you go for condo bad I prefer arguments that are specific to the negative team's strategy.

- I err aff on most other CP theory, but having specific solvency advocates can help the neg persuade me otherwise.

- In-depth discussion about how the mechanisms of the counterplan interact with the other arguments in the debate (linking to DAs, solving the impacts of advantages, etc.) is one of my favorite things to see in debate rounds, and a good way to win the debate for both teams.

Kritiks:

- Assume I am not familiar with your lit base. I'm not well versed in many critical literature bases, and even if I am somewhat familiar with yours, more explanation always helps.

- I am most persuaded by arguments contextualized to the world of the affirmative, whether you are going for an alt or a link/framework.

- Negative teams need to contest the affirmative in ways other than on framework or the impact to the K; a 2NR that spends time discussing how the aff is incapable of solving its impacts alongside critical offense is the most compelling to me.

Framework:

- I like debates about fairness. Usually when neg teams bring up other impacts (like truth testing, topic education) I think they end up being indistinguishable from fairness anyway, so if you want to go for them make them distinct.

- I like negative strategies against non-resolutional affirmatives that engage with the case, either via evidence or good C/X questions.

- Non-resolutional affs that have some clear connections to topic literature and have a role for the negative in their model are most compelling to me.

Emory ‘24

Washburn Rural ‘20

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants.

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks.

I won't adjudicate issues that occurred outside of the debate.

T USFG: I'm very good for T against K Affs. Fairness is the best impact. I also like clash style impacts.

Ks: I'm also very good for Affs with plans and extinction impacts against Ks. I generally believe Affs should get to weigh the plan.

T: I don’t have extensive topic knowledge so will need more explanation. I enjoy these debates more so when they include substantive engagement, and less so when they include a contrived, unpredictable interp.

CPs: Not a huge fan of generic process CPs.

Theory: Conditionality is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Harley McWilliams

Put me on the chain: hamcwilliams1@gmail.com

I have debated for Washburn Rural for all four years of high school. Over those four years I have only read topic centered literature. I am not well versed in Ks and have literally never read one in the 1NC. If you want to read generic topic counterplans I am definitely on board, but a 3 minute long perm do the counterplan block read off your computer at top speed is also not very persuasive to me.

DA/Case: My favorite form of debate.

CP/DA/Case: My second favorite form of debate.

T: I am a sucker for reasonability. I am not very interested in a super technical and boring T debate to exclude one affirmative just for the sake of limits. I would rather have you debate the substance of the affirmative. That being said, if you aren't reasonably topical, ie if you don't have a plan, I will probably not vote for you.

Ks: I am going to flow your argument and do my best to understand what you are saying, but I am not very well read in this area. Your best shot is to explain specific links to the affirmative and what the impact to the argument is, and kind of treating it like a disad with an alternative. A lot of high theory or complicated language from the literature is not going to make me think that your argument is better.

Things I like: 1) Nice people who are enjoying debate. People who are too intense or condescending I have a tendency to not enjoy. 2) Closed cross-ex, especially in novice debate. Novice debate is about learning! Open cross ex often leads to one partner taking over the whole questioning period, so I would much rather have you all just do your own cross ex when it is your turn.

Speaker points

29.7+ - You are the best novice I have ever seen

29.4-29.6 - You should be a top 5 speaker

29.0-29.3 - You should win a speaker award

28.5-28.9 - You were pretty impressive but have some things you need to work on

28.1-28.4 - You were a pretty average novice

28.0 below - reserved for people who don't flow, are rude, do not try, etc.

Email chain if there is one: logan.michael1101@gmail.com speech drop is kool too.

Debated policy for 4 years at Washburn Rural High School and I'm currently in my 4th year of debating NFA-LD (one person policy) at Washburn University. Second year assistant coaching at WaRu

Generics

Speed: I'm fine with speed if the rest of the room is too. Just slow down for analytics

Judge instruction is real important. Write my ballot for me.

In general you do you. I default to evaluating the round how you tell me to. I would prefer to see you do what you want to do well than do what I like bad. But, just in case

specific arguments:

T/Theory

I can evaluate T so if you feel like the aff is untopical or that you can justify why it's untopical then don't be afraid to go for T in front of me. Also means that you can read untopical affs in front of me if you think you can out tech your opponent

Probably default to condo being good

Ks

I will listen to any K. That being said, i haven’t engaged in the lit base of a lot of them so, if I don't understand the K and it's clear you don't understand the K it will be extremely hard for me to vote on it so make you explain everything (especially your links) well.

CPs

Read 'em

DAs

Read 'em

Things I like: Bow-ties, kool socks. Things I don't like: People being rude (don't do this). I also reward interesting/innovative arguments, don’t be afraid to break norms.

If anything is unclear or you want further clarification just ask before the round or email me. Good luck!

Washburn Rural '22

Email: rishipandya2800@gmail.com

If you have questions just ask me before the round

Default to Indo-Pak War good, but only if India wins

General Comments

I am tech over truth on everything that is not T. But there is also a limit to how much I can handle arguments that are obviously not true.

Please extend your answers/evidence properly, that means tag and warrants.

Most of the non-theory portion of the debate should be card vs. card. Don't give me an analytic, either read a new card or extend one read earlier in the debate.

I actually do like when people send their analytics in debates, so if you put send your analytics, I'll give your higher speaks

Don't have experience judging varsity debate, and even though I debated it for 3 years, I am quite rusty, so mod speed is probably best

Don't be difficult, please disclose, unless you're breaking new

T

I actually will not vote on T unless it's 5 minutes in the 2NR along with other arguments about abuse such as disclosure.

K

Be very wary of running Ks when I'm judging. I have a very high bar for voting on them, and I basically don't know anything about a majority of them. However, I am still open to voting on them if it is explained very thoroughly.

If you read the speed K or any other speed argument, I will not vote for it.

DAs

Honestly I think that extinction and existential threats are almost always overblown. Even for things that result in extinction like nuclear war, the link chain most likely isn't true and can be pointed out really easily. I'm a big fan of turns.

Case

Whoever told you that you can split the case and not answer it in the 1NC is wrong. Answer all the case in the speech or it's dropped.

Other things that Irk me

Sending speech docs that are PDFs or Google Docs instead of Word Docs.

Saying your opponents dropped an arguments when they clearly didn't.

Even if it is open cross, don't speak over your partner's cx.

New arguments in the rebuttals. Even if the other team doesn't point it out, I will count it against you. Also kind of applies to the 2AC. Unless it's a turn, there is no way your aff just magically found a new impact that wasn't in the 1AC.

jiyooon.park@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

KU '26

Assistant coach for Washburn Rural and Greenhill

I will judge solely on the technical debating done and will avoid intervening. As I judge more debates, I continue to vote on arguments I vehemently disagree with, but were executed well on a technical level. The only requirement for all debaters is that an argument has a claim and a warrant. This means a few things:

- I will decide debates based on my flow, but do not care whether you go for the fiat K, politics, or warming good. The main caveat is my bar for an argument is claim and warrant*, the absence of the latter will make it easier to discount or refute. I would prefer strategies reflective of the literature with good evidence, but debate is a game so you do you.

*If you say only "no US-China war" and the other team concedes it, that is functionally meaningless. If you say "no US-China war, interdependence and diplomacy" that holds more relevance if dropped, BUT not as much as you'd think given it was not a complete thought. The logical progression of this example is that you should fully flesh out your arguments.

- I will read evidence out of interest during the debate, but it will not influence my decision until the debaters make it matter. This can be through establishing a metric for how I should evaluate and elevate certain types of evidence and then naming certain authors/relevant cards for my decision. If a metric is never set, I favor better highlighted evidence, complete warrants, and conclusiveness. Argument made analytically can hold similar weight to evidence if warranted and smart.

- The last thing that will boost you chances of winning is clear judge instruction. Flag your clear pieces of offense, dropped concessions, and say where I should start my decision. This also means when extending a claim and a warrant, explain the implication of winning an argument.

- I will not vote on anything external to the debate such as personal attacks, receipts, prefs, or ad-homs. Ethical/external issues should be settled outside of the debate.

- The only caveat to me deciding technically and offense-defense is cowardice and cheap-shots. I will not vote on hidden-SPEC and am very willing to give new answers. Similar ones like floating PIKs also probably don't meet the bar of a complete argument. If there is uncertainty make it a real argument...

That said here are some of my debate thoughts that could shape your strategy:

- For K-AFFs, it makes far more sense to go for a form based impact turn, rather than a content one or a counter-interpretation.

- For framework, contextualize your offense and defense to the debate/case you are debating or just go for fairness.

- Performative contradictions, when going for the K/the 1NC is multiple worlds, matter a lot to me and probably implicate your framework arguments.

- The fiat K/interpretations that zero the 1AC make more sense to me than trying to make causal links to the plan and huge alternatives because the perm double bind becomes truer.

- I have never seen an AFF reasonability argument on T that I found persuasive, I can obviously be convinced otherwise, but it seems like an uphill battle.

- My default is no judge kick/I will not do it, unless explicitly told to.

- Non-condo theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument not the team.

- Absolute defense, zero-risk, and presumption are most definitely a thing.

- AFF intrinsicness arguments on DAs have rarely made sense to me.

- Establish a metric for competition and have standards. I would like to see a counterplan that competes on the unique resolutional mechanism, rather than certainty and immediacy.

Things that will boost your speaks:

- Flow, i.e. correctly identifying dropped arguments, strategically going for dropped arguments, writing/typing when the other team is speaking, etc.

- Debating off paper and being less laptop dependent such as giving the final rebuttals with only paper.

- Having fun, debates are more fun when they are light hearted and you seem like you're enjoying it.

- Fewer off and a more cohesive strategy.

- Strategic and funny cross-exes. Most cross-exes are FYIs and reminders, don't do that.

- Down-time moving faster such as sending speeches out, starting cross-ex, etc. Asking for a marked doc when it was only two cards marked will annoy me and marked docs don't include cards not read. Just flow pls...

Miscellaneous things include:

- Keeping your camera on during online debates makes them more bearable.

- I will clear you twice and after that I will vote against you for clipping/stop flowing your speech, but for educational purposes I won't halt the debate.

im very good

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

This, this is my paradigm

Emma Schroeder

Washburn Rural High School ’20

KU ’24 (not debating)

Put me on the email chain - ekathschroeder@gmail.com

TLDR - I am most comfortable in a policy-orientated debate. If you want to go for anything different, be ready to over-explain. Be nice, be smart, be clear and we should have a good time

----------

Top Level

Don't expect me to have a lot of insight on very technical, topic-specific arguments if you don't provide context and explanation for me. I haven't researched a debate topic since high school. If I look confused you need to warrant things out more. Please don't make me google

Please. Do. Judge Instruction. If your rebuttal doesn't make some sort of claim like "if we win x argument we win the debate" then you have not done your rebuttal correctly

Tech v truth - Evidence quality and credibility is very important, and I will reward you for good research and for being ahead on the flow. But! Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Your “card” doesn’t count as tech if it’s unintelligibly highlighted. I think people need to stop assuming that terrible arguments necessitate a response. I have a lot of respect for 2ACs that *correctly* identify a nonsense arg, make a handful of smart analytics, and move on

Speed - Stop screaming into your laptops. Dear god. I flow on paper. I promise you I can flow, but if you don't explain your argument out long enough for me to physically move my pen then it probably isn't a real argument anyway. Topicality, framework, and other theory blocks need to be slowed down. I often have very physical signs of agreement or confusion with arguments. If you cannot slow down enough to look for these signs while speaking then why are you in a communication activity? My flow is the only one that matters when I write the ballot. Stop sacrificing line by line for reading blocks. It's bad debate practice and hella boring to judge

Bigotry in any way will not be tolerated. If it becomes an issue in round, it will result in a loss

----------

Things I like - 8 min of case in the 2NC, no laptops in the 2NR/2AR, impact calc, ballot framing, baller cross-ex strategies, unabashedly slow yet efficient debaters, persuasion, rehighlighted evidence, debaters who are funny/having a good time

Things I don’t like - general rudeness, 10 off in the 1NC (why do u need to do dis), stealing prep, clipping, death good, bad highlighting (see above rant), saying “X was conceded!!!” when it really wasn’t

----------

Case - **heart eyes emoji** The more case debate you do, the happier I become. Two good case cards > your extra shitty DA. I have never had the opportunity to vote on presumption but would absolutely love to. If you give me this opportunity I will gladly reward you, either with the ballot or with good speaks.

Counterplans - Will vote for conditions/consult/process/PICs but probably won’t be thrilled about it. Conditionality is probably good, but I get annoyed judging 9 off debates that suck when it could have been a 5 off debate that was good. I usually see judge kick as an extension of condo unless otherwise contested. I would like a solvency advocate unless you’re getting incredibly creative. Will be responsive to theory if every solvency deficit is being fiated through. Delay = cheating.

Topicality - probably my favorite argument although it’s hard to do correctly. Debaters should think of T debates like they’re debating a DA. 1 standard = 1 DA. Pick one for the 2NR, otherwise there's too many moving parts and your impact won't be explained. It is rare to see a terminal impact explained to T, you should have one. It's try or die for *your impact* baby. Arguments should be framed in the context of what the current topic looks like and how it would change. In general: Precision > Limits > Ground > Topic Education. Also, if you put a 15 second ASPEC blip at the bottom of your T shell, there’s a 100% chance I will ignore it. Put it on a separate sheet.

Kritiks - If it tells you anything, when I was a senior I did not read a K in the 1NC a single time. But if you want to, go for it and be prepared to explain! There are so many moments when I judge K debates where I think to myself "I have 0 idea what this means" and its not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that your speech does not go beyond the use of buzzwords. Using a big word is not and will never be a sufficient warrant. The FW and links 2NRs are most successful because alts are always bad imo. Unless you are very good I will probably weigh the aff. Saying fiat is illusory doesn’t mean anything to me. Long overviews are a sign that you’re not putting in enough effort to engage with the line-by-line.

Framework - I am a bad person to read a planless aff in front of. But if you must, I believe affs need to have some form of topic link. Fairness is the most persuasive impact to me. I don’t think going to the actual case page in the 2NR is always necessary, but the arguments need to be contextualized to the 1AC. Neg teams are generally good at talking about their impacts but need to do more work on the internal link level.

Don’t read a K, I won’t vote for you.

Live Laugh Love Debate

zwillingham04@gmail.com

Washburn Rural '22

University of Kansas '26

Assistant for Washburn Rural

General Thoughts

Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough or if answered poorly enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biases for any argument. Dropped arguments are true.

I am operating under the assumption that you have put in considerable effort to be here and you want to win. I will try to put reciprocal effort into making an objective decision unless you have done something to indicate those assumptions are incorrect.

Nothing you say or do will offend me, but lack of respect for your opponents will not be tolerated.

My background is very policy-oriented. I strategically chose to talk about cyber-security instead of criminal justice and water resources. The best argument is always the one that wins. Do what you are best at.

My favorite part about debate is the way different arguments interact with each other across different pages. The way to beat faster and more technical teams is to make smart cross-applications and concessions.

Except for the 2AR, what is "new" is up for debate. Point out your opponent's new arguments and explain why they are not justified.

Evidence is very important. I only read cards after the debate if the issue has been contested. A dropped card is still dropped even if it is trash. Quality > Quantity. I do not see any strategic utility in reading multiple the cards that say the same thing. Card dumping is effective when each card has unique warrants.

Cross-ex is very important. Use it to set up your strategy, not to clarify what cards were skipped. I appreciate it when the final rebuttals quote lines from cross-ex/earlier speeches. It makes it seem like you have been in control of the round since the beginning.

I do not want to hear a prepped out ethics violation. Tell the team before the round.

I do not want to hear an argument about something that happened outside of the round.

Rehighlightings can be inserted as long as you explain what the rehighlighting says. I see it as more specific evidence comparison.

Argument Specific

Topicality:

Your interpretation is the tag of your definition. If there is any discrepancy between the tag and the body of the card, that is a precision indict but not a reason the aff meets.

Counterplans:

I enjoy quality competition debates. I like tricky perms. Put the text in the doc.

"Links less" makes sense to me for certain disads, but makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the deficit. Perm do both is probabilistic. Perm do the counterplan is binary.

If a perm has not been extended, solvency automatically becomes a net benefit.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I will not reject the team even on a dropped theory argument unless there is a coherent warrant for why it would not be enough to only reject the argument.

I will only judge kick (without being told) if it has been established that conditionality is good.

Advantages/Disadvantages:

Most scenarios are very construed. Logical analytical arguments can substantially mitigate them. I do not like it when the case debate in the 1NC is only impact defense.

Punish teams for reading new impacts in the 2AC and block.

Extinction means the end of the species. Most impacts do not rise to this threshold. Point it out.

"Try or die" or similar impact framing is very persuasive when executed properly. If the negative doesn't extend a counterplan or impact defense, they are likely to lose.

Zero risk is possible if your opponent has entirely dropped an argument and the implication of that argument is that the scenario is 0. However, I can be convinced that many arguments, even when dropped, do not rise to that level.

Kritiks v Policy Affs:

I will determine which framework interpretation is better and use that to evaluate the round. I will not adopt a middle ground combination of both interpretations unless someone has convinced me that is the best option (which it usually is).

Make it very explicit what the win condition is for you if you win framework. Only saying "The 1AC is an object of research" does not tell me how I determine the winner.

If the K is just one of many off case positions and the block reads a bunch of new cards, the 1AR probably gets to say any new thing they want.

Planless Affs:

All affirmatives should endorse a departure from the status quo.

Procedural arguments like topicality come prior to the hypothetical benefits of the aff's implementation, but if there are arguments on the case that also serve as offense against the negative's interpretation, then I will weigh those against the negative's offense.

I do not like it when the 1AC says X is bad, the 1NC says X is good, and the 2AC says no link.

Many debaters do not explain switch side debate as effectively as they could. It should be offense.

Things to boost speaks, but won't affect wins and losses

Give final rebuttals off paper.

Number/subpoint arguments.

Impact turn whenever you can. Straight turn every disad if you're brave. I love chaos, but the final rebuttals better be resolving things.

Good wiki and disclosure practices.

Don't read arguments that can be recycled every year.

Stand up for cross-ex right when the timer ends. Send docs quickly. Preferably in the last few seconds of their speech.

Make jokes. Have fun. Respect your opponents. Good-natured insults can be funny but read the room.

Pretty speech docs. Ugly docs usually means ugly debating.

Debate with integrity. Boo cheapshots. It is better to lose with honor, than win by fraud.

LD

I’ve never had the privilege of sitting through an entire LD round so if there is specific vocabulary I am not in the loop. Assume I have minimal topic knowledge.

Tell me why you access their offense, why it is the most important thing, and why they don’t access their offense. Be strategic.

Answer your opponent’s arguments explicitly. I want to hear “They say x, but y because z”.