I have 3 years of experience competing in Public Forum debate in high school. I mainly want to see comparative weighing of arguments and evidence, especially in the final two speeches. I would prefer to see analysis driven debate rather than evidence dumps. Speed isn't really an issue as long as you speak clearly. If you have any questions for me please feel free to ask before the round.

I debated all 4 years in highschool. I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha Nebraska. I competed at plenty of tournaments in Nebraska and the national circuit. I've competed at T.O.C, Blake, nationals, and was state champion in Nebraska in PF.

I EXPECT THE SECOND REBUTTAL TO COVER BOTH SIDES! By this I mean that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case, and defend their own case from their attacks from the first rebuttal. IF THE SECOND TEAM DOES NOT DO THIS, AND THE FIRST TEAM POINTS IT OUT IN SUMMARY THEN THE SECOND TEAM AUTOMATICALLY LOSSES! In my eyes not covering both sides is dropping your case. You have dropped all your opponents attacks and therefore it is too late to cover them in second summary.

Also new evidence in second summary is ify especially if its a new point.

EVIDENCE IS A BIG DEAL TO ME. I WILL CALL FOR CARDS AFTER THE ROUND IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT OR WHERE HOTLY DEBATED IN ROUND. If the card is shady, has poor methodology, or has any problems I will most likely not consider the evidence.

I like real world examples, and cross-applying. Warrants and impacts must be likely and probable. Speaking I dont really care. I debated four years so I can handle speed. Summary is a summary sign post, summarize the points, and dont do a rebuttal part 2.

Nebraska College of Law '24

University of Nebraska-Lincoln '20 (BA in History and Political Science)

4 year debater on NE circuit, this is my 6th year judging

she/her

Some preferences:

I am not a fan of speed.

Don't be rude. Being assertive is one thing, but being a jerk will hurt your speaker points

I don't write down author names, so don't just refer to your "Johnson" card

Signpost after constructive

Pleeeease have your cards/evidence readily available

***Debate needs be a safe and accessible environment, give trigger warnings. Do not commodify/weaponize sensitive subjects for the sake of winning, I will not weigh those arguments in your favor.

Argumentation/weighing:

I am fine with any type of argumentation you want to use

- but just an FYI, I am not super familiar with progressive PF

2nd speaking teams don't have to rebuild in rebuttal, but it probably would be advantageous to do so

I care the most about your warrants, so explain your links as clearly as possible. I hate seeing huge impacts with poor explanations as to why they happen

- so, please! don't ask me to extend your argument from a tagline

I rarely call for cards at the end of the round, flesh them out for me!

If the round is a total wash, I will presume neg

Most importantly: have fun and be respectful!

If you don't have time to read all of this, just skim the bold points, and you'll be golden!

Hello! I'm Pranita, and I'm a PF judge. I was not a debater before but did judge regularly for a couple years, so I do have experience with PF. However, pretend like I am more or less a lay judge and don't get too technical with things like links/impacts/warrants, etc. I haven't judged for a couple of years, so also be patient with me being unsure on any new rules and timing changes. Speaking of timing, please keep time on your own as well, especially for prep, so we have some insurance in case I happen to track something wrong.

The things I look for are clearly organized rebuttals, and heavy weighing on the voters. For the rebuttals, make sure I know exactly what on the opponents' case you're responding to. If things get too muddled, I won't be able to catch it and pull through to the summary. Keep in mind: if you don't respond to something on the opponent's case in rebuttal, and start a counterargument in 2nd summary, I will not flow it through. If you drop a point in rebuttal and bring it up in 1st summary, it'll be up to my discretion whether or not I carry it forward, and will be generally grumpy about it if I do. Just get all your responses in the rebuttal, even if you just say one line about it. Anything you don't respond to, I will consider dropped. For the voters in final focus, weigh heavily and clearly! Remind me of the main happenings through the round that lead you to your claim that the voter should be flowed your way. I decide who wins solely on who takes more voters, unless there is a tie.

Crossfire: I like a civilized and polite crossfire section. Remember to look at the judge while speaking, not each other. Make sure to mention anything from cross that you want counted toward your argument again in your speech. I will not take into account points from crossfire that you don't bring up again. I am fine with you showing each other evidence after crossfire so that you can maximize your crossfire time.

Speaking etiquette: Please be humble and courteous. I have little tolerance for condescension/cockiness, and will start docking speaker points if it happens more than once. The point of debate is to masterfully craft a winning argument, not to play mind games on your opponents with an emotionally-driven confidence smackdown. Have genuine respect for your opponents, and you shouldn't have any trouble with this. :) Remember, the moment the round is over, your opponents actually turn into your allies. We have something to learn from everyone, and the moment we forget this, we actually end up losing because we've stopped growing.

I am extremely excited to be judging again and look forward to seeing everyone; good luck and have fun!

Background

• Did college NFA LD for 4 years

Miscellaneous

• I like talking to debaters. Feel free to come chat.
• If I make a face at an argument, I'm confused. It's never personal.

Bias

• Note: I'll vote on any of the arguments below if you win the flow but you may have to work harder depending on your choices. Here are some of my biases. 
• I like real-world policy action. My favorite debates affirm or negate a material action/policy to reduce suffering.
• I'll vote on the K but I like alternatives that do something. Any alt that meditates on the nature of human suffering kinda sucks. I'm easily persuaded to disregard it.
• I don't hate philosophy debates but if it's not relevant to the rez, join a book club.
• Don't like pessimism arguments. 
• Won't vote on death good/racism good/etc

Paradigm

• Please FRAME THE ROUND! I really don't want to decide which impact I like more.
• Tech > Truth but my BS detector is pretty good too.
• If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech
• No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you
• I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.
• I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation
• Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.
• Speed is fine but proportional clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.
• If you want to be super aggressive and condescending, you better not suck fam. Don't yell. Ad hominem = 25 speaks
• Don't make faces or talk during the opponent's speech
• A trigger warning for sensitive arguments is good but opponents can't prevent you from reading an argument
• If you bring outside drama into the round I will listen very very closely so I can gossip in the judge's lounge but I won't vote on an accusation I can't verify. If it's an ethics issue contact the tournament. 

NFA LD 

• K: Not super familiar with most of the literature but walk me through the argument and explain why alt solves the aff. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably recommended. I will vote on a vague alt-bad provided the warrants are good(time skew/allows aff pivot/etc).
• DA: Not much to say here. Win the link. Win the impact. Weigh/Frame. 2 good DAs > 4 bad DAs. 
• AFF: Pretty much an auto-lose on T if you aren't doing a material action through the actor of the rez. Neg just needs to say you are stealing neg ground and robbing everyone of topic education. 
• T: No proven abuse needed

PF 

• No new evidence in summary. New analysis based on evidence that has been read is acceptable
• 2nd Rebuttal is expected to attack and defend. I believe that having all new arguments in rebuttal makes the round clearer, and more educational saving grand cx for final clarifications
• If you wanna read theory in PF, I'll listen but it better be clear and good.
• Don't talk to your partner during their speech

I'm no longer involved in the debate community. If you're reading this, you're probably in the wrong place.

I used to have a very long, detailed paradigm about how I would allow anything under xyz circumstances. However, after watching a few rounds at a recent tournament, I've changed my paradigm on debate.

I would now like debate to do what debate is meant to do:

Democratically and critically engage with pressing issues.

I will no longer listen to nontopical affirmatives. (Although you're welcome to run questionably topical affirmatives and try to convince me). I will start docking speaker points for incomprehensible speeds and yelling at me or your opponent. I will begin evaluating debates how they are meant to be evaluated, as a question of the resolution.

Experience
I debated 2 years of Public Forum in High School.
I’ve judged mostly high school Lincoln Douglas for the last 6 years.
I debated Policy for the University of Nebraska Lincoln for 3 years.

Judging: I have, thus far, only judged PF rounds. That is my comfort zone.

Speed: I can follow faster presentations, but if I miss a contention because I was taking notes on the previous contention, that's on y'all.

Numbers: I don't require facts, figures, and statistics. However, if one team uses them, cites them, and defends their validity if challenged then they will have an advantage over a team that does not. This being said, if these numbers accidentally reveal that the other team outweighs on magnitude, or probability, that's also on y'all.

Unconventionality: Original (strong) arguments are appreciated and effective. They have to make sense and they have to be supported by evidence. They also have to be relevant.

How I weigh: Beyond simply proving your point, I focus on whether someone's contention has been neutralized/negated/disproven/minimized (or demonstrated to be non-unique). I tend to favor probability over magnitude.

Warrants/Technical Arguments: Linked to unconventionality, if you make an argument that requires technical knowledge, you should try to briefly explain it. Also, if the feasibility/reality of a claim is not readily apparent, the warrant should come with a short explanation as to how it makes sense.

She/her

Assistant Coach at Lincoln Southwest

Debated for 3 years on NE circuit

I don’t like speed so please slow down

I don't like theory and progressive arguments but I will evaluate it as best as I can

I especially don't like theory in PF :)

As a Black judge please do not have any kumbaya (easy solvency) racism arguments. If you run racism, you need have clear links & warrants

Assume that I am not well versed in the topic so explain everything.

USE MUST TAKE PREP TIME TO READ EVIDENCE!

If you don't have a clear link, you don't get access to your impacts

I prefer if second speaker rebuilds in their rebuttal, but if you have good coverage/ cross analysis/ rebuild in summary you won't be penalized

I am not huge on card dumps and numbers being thrown around; if you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name). Please do not misconstrue your evidence

(!!!) IMPACT- some of the best rounds are lost because teams do not impact (weighing is equally as important, make the decision for me). I absolutely hate lazy impacts such as extinction, climate change, & recession (having big numbers doesn't mean you'll win the round). Be creative!

I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc arguments will not be weighed in the round.

If you have any questions at all, just ask! I am open to helping anyone with their debate skills and ideas, no matter your success or failure. You can reach out any time, regardless if I have judged you or not :)

Good luck!

-run theory on me and see what happens. actually idk what would happen

-Medical Student at University of Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska Lincoln 2020 graduate with bachelor's in Biochemistry

-Debated 4 years in Nebraska circuit PF, competed at NSDA nationals, 7th year judging PF

-Speak as fast as you want to but I can only type so fast

-Run whatever i don't care but I am not knowledgable on progressive debate

-I usually browse the internet/shut my brain off during crossfires

-Second rebuttal does not have to rebuild if they don't want to but obviously respond to arguments at some point

-I don't write down card names

-Any evidence/analysis that wants to be extended must be mentioned in all speeches post rebuttal. So extend defense from rebuttal to summary

-I don't want to see your cards after the round

-Asking for evidence in round is fine but the bane of my existence is when teams take 5 minutes to find one card

-Links, impacts, and weighing please and not just card dumps

-I reserve 30s for genuinely amazing performances, but I will probably give most solid debaters 29.5

-You can ask me before round if there's anything else you should know about my judging style that was not written in my paradigm - the answer is no. You can ask me specific questions about my judging style but I have no substantive answers for broad questions

tonyleaiy1997@gmail.com for any questions

I debated Nebraska Circuit Public Forum for four years at Lincoln Southwest High School. I've judged Nebraska Circuit Public Forum for two years.

I'm generally okay with speed. However, if you speak too quickly, then I can't guarantee that I will get everything on my flow.

Elaborate on your cards throughout the round. Simply listing off the author and year of your card won't do much for me, especially in the second half of the round. Also, give me reasons to prefer your cards over your opponent's. Otherwise, the preference is left up to me. Lastly, I will never call for a card at the end of the round.

If you want me to consider your framework it should be properly justified. Simply attaching it to the top of each speech isn't enough.

Second speaker rebuttal is not required to respond to attacks.

New evidence can be brought up in summary as long as its related to an existing argument.

I am more likely to vote for you if you can provide a big picture and tell a consistent, compelling story.

Be civil.

I debated PF in high school and have been judging the past few years.

Evidence is a huge deal to me. If important in round, I may call for cards after the round is completed.

The second rebuttal should cover both attacking opponents' case and defending attacks. Bringing in new points of defense/offense during summary will not be weighed.

While evidence is crucial to me, explaining to me why it matters (impacts) is just as important as the evidence itself.

Speed is fine, just speak clearly.

Experience:

I debated for Millard West High School for 4 years (2015-2019) in Public Forum. I competed nationally and in the Nebraska Circuit. I was mostly a summary speaker but spent some time doing rebuttals.

Speaking:

I am all for aggression until a certain point. Be civil and do not be afraid to stand up for yourself. I will not tolerate harassment in round.

I am fine with speed as long as you enunciate and as long as the other team can understand what you are saying.

I pay attention to CX but for me to weigh something in the round you need to bring it up in a speech.

Argumentation:

You must defend in 2nd rebuttal for me to extend your case, otherwise consider it dropped.

You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus for it to be weighed in the round.

Speaking of weighing, DO IT.

You need to explain the warrants and impacts not just read me a last name on a card and say extend it.

If the other team drops an argument say it in the next speech, I most likely will catch it but it is important to let me know that I should extend it on your side.

Evidence:

I will call for any evidence that is asked of me by the debaters, if I think it is sketchy I will call for it, or if it determines the round I will call for it.

Other things:

If you are debating a topic that is potentially triggering have a warning for me and the other team out of respect.

I will come into rounds trying my best to be as unbiased as possible.

Feel free to ask me any questions :)

I was in debate all four years in high school, and this is my fourth year as a judge. The best way to win a round is to tell a clear and consistent story that flows through all of your speeches. Although, I'm not a judge that comes into a round with predetermined biases nor predetermined ideas of how a debate should be, so just have a nice, clash-filled debate and I'll be a neutral judge.

Background: I did debate in PF for four years at Lincoln High School.

Debate how ever you want. I will try to be tabula rasa and evaluate what is in round. To help me make a good decision, I have compiled a list of things you should do in a debate round.

Things I like in a debate round:

1) Weigh arguments.

2) Extend cards, warrants, impact, or whatever you think will make you win the round. That being said, this is how I consider a good extension. Don't assume that I "get" your argument if you bring up a card name related to it. That is not how it works. I expect fully extension of your warrants.

3) Good strategy > extend everything

4) Second speaking team should plan on responding to the first rebuttal in second rebuttal.

5) If something is in final focus, then it must(most of the time) be in the summary.

I have linked great videos that explains the components of debate. Check these out in your free time.

Progressive Arguments:

I am inexperience with this but I am learning. Don't count on me for making the right decision.

Learn how to do a summary in debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuLuRZuvsJc

Learn how to do Impact Calculus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlR27R_bG0o&feature=youtu.be

The Human Condition and Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7sxj1Z-U1E&feature=youtu.be

My name is Jarred Williams. I graduated from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln in May of 2021, majoring in Political Science and minoring in English, and will be heading to law school in the Fall of 2023. I currently working as a commercial developer. I graduated from Lincoln Southwest High School in 2017 and competed in PF all 4 years of high school.

Do:

- use all of your allotted time in each speech

- quote your sources directly, and then provide a brief explanation of what it means and how it works under your argument(s).

- Use all of your prep time.

Do not:

- cut off your opponents during crossfire.

- turn your summaries and final focuses into extended rebuttals. Rebuttals are used to address all points of clash in the round (effectively whittling down the round to the main points), summaries are used to "summarize" these main points of clash in the round and your argument and evidence you have to go along with those points, and the final focus is a brief persuasive type of speech used to explain to the judge why they'll be voting for you.

Name: Cameron Wilson
School Affiliation: Millard West/Millard North
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0, I’ve judged a few tournaments of LD
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0
If you are a coach, what events do you coach?
What is your current occupation? Student

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery
I can only type 75 words per minute, so beyond a certain point I won’t be able to flow your speed, although I can hear it. For example if your case is 4.5 pages(12pt font, double spaced) odds are I’ll miss a flowing a little bit of it.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Tie up the most important arguments line by line, but other than quickly telling me why unimportant args are unimportant, leave them out.

Role of the Final Focus: Big Picture
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Definitely don’t bring up an argument in the final focus that you only ever mentioned in your case and say that it should be voted on. Carry them through most of the speeches, and if you had to drop something in summary, tell me why it’s okay (for example, quickly argue that you dropped it because you won it)

Topicality: I’ll treat it on a case by case basis. I like wild arguments that talk about how the resolution’s affirmation/negation has far reaching and unrelated impacts, but tie it back to the resolution. An example of non topicality for me is if the resolution was about gun control and you have a case that is completely about organ harvesting with zero mention of control.

Plans: I have no idea how this would ever come up. If you create a parallel plan to the resolution and say something like “instead of the arguing for the resolution we’re arguing for this plan”, I will allow the other team to just say you are being non-topical.

Kritiks: Not convincing in public forum, not interested in hearing it. Like if your case is a Kritik that says I need to vote for you to send a message to the national speech and debate association to instigate change, I’ll probably just ignore it all.

Flowing/note-taking: I try to flow literally every single point and argument made, but I can only type so fast. Sometimes if I miss something I’ll go up and edit the flow after your speech if I remember what you said. Giving speeches in order that you have flowed is very easy for me to follow and preferred.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: I didn’t know argument/style were in opposition to each other. I value argument I suppose, but if your style is vicious meanness or extreme mumbling then I’ll give horrible speaker points and maybe stop flowing.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?: Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?: No, but in my experience most of the time second speaking team doesn’t cover both it means they’re going to drop a lot of their case and cede many arguments. It is highly highly recommended

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?: Not unless they’re brought up in a speech. It should be easy to include them in a speech though—just very quickly summarize/remind me of what happened in the crossfire and I’ll put it on my flow.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here: I will intentionally naively believe a lot of evidence within reasonable grounds, in order to make teams address each others arguments.

-- PF --

I would consider myself to be a "traditional" PF judge, if that helps. I flow everything, but you need to impact and explain. I expect the second speaker to respond to the rebuttal of the first speaker. I am good with speed and most other PF styles and tactics. Spreading is highly discouraged. I don't believe it's effective, good, or educational, and I may drop you on face. If you just read cards at me and don't impact them, don't expect me to weigh them. As well, if you only extend a card by saying "Johnson 18, war is bad, pull through" that puts it on the flow but doesn't give it a lot of weight.

I'm open and willing to hear most any argument as long as you can explain it well and back it up. I tend to give long winded RFDs, so if I get talking for a long time, don't hesitate to say something. Sometimes I forget how long I've been going on.

-- LD --

I don't judge LD often. I would probably be considered the more traditional in terms of LD, and my judging style will be similar to my PF judging. I will flow everything. The value seems(?) to be the most important things, so make sure you tie your arguments back to it. Ask me as many questions as you want/need to, I'm still learning LD. I will also not be insulted if you correct me on something or challenge me on something.

I debated PF at Lincoln Southwest High School for all 4 years in the Nebraska Circuit.

Argumentation/Weighing:

I am open to many styles of arguments in the round, unless they are presented or explained poorly.

I weigh heavily on your warrants and impacts, so it really helps to clearly explain the links between your warrants and impacts. Carry through your warrants and impacts through every speech or I will considered it dropped.

It would be very beneficial to provide a weighing mechanism in the form of an observation/framework. Make sure to refer back to your framework/observation in every speech or I won't consider it as an important factor in my decision.

I don't write evidence with the author's name so don't expect me to remember the "Wilkins 18" card.

I won't call for cards unless your opponents have called a card and it ends up being a controversial point in the round.

Round Structure:

The 2nd rebuttal should address both sides of the flow. This means that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case and defend their own case. Any unaddressed points, if called out by your opponents, will be considered dropped.

The Summary should narrow down the main points in the round. Don't give me a second rebuttal during the summary and don't bring new evidence into summary. This is where most of the weighing and comparing of evidence and impacts should occur in the round in addition to the final focus.

I will not consider or flow any information after the time has ended during any of the speeches so use your time accordingly.

Speaking:

I'm prefer a moderate speed, but if you chose to speak fast, there might be certain details I miss. Overall, I would prefer clarity over speeding.

Don't be rude to your opponents (interrupting during cx, using inappropriate language, etc...) I will reflect this in your speaker points.

I would prefer teams to give an off time road map that goes over what you will be talking about in your speech for rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses.

I understand some of the challenges some people face with speaking and will take that into consideration when giving speaks. Generally, I won't be too harsh on speaker points unless I believe there was something said in the round that warrants low speaks.

I debated PF at Lincoln Southwest High School for all 4 years in the Nebraska Circuit.

Argumentation/Weighing:

I am really open to any type of argument you might give during the round. Present it with enough evidence to support it and convince me that it's a big enough factor to vote on. I rely heavily on extending impacts through the round so be sure not to drop them.

I don't usually call for cards unless your opponents have called for it and it ends up being a major factor in the round.

Round Structure:

I believe the 2nd rebuttal should address both sides of the flow. Meaning that the second rebuttal addresses what your opponents said about your case and attacking theirs. This is where I will probably extend most of the impacts if they are dropped and if the 1st speaking team points that out.

Summary and Final Focus should both be set up to look exactly the same. Boil down the main arguments and systematically explain to me why you are winning each point.

I will not flow cross-fires but I will listen. Be sure to tell me during a speech if something important happened during cross-fire so I can flow it to your side.

Speaking:

I really don't like a lot of speed but I am able to catch most of it. I definitely prefer clarity over speed.

Be sure to respect your opponents during the round by not interrupting them during cross-fire. If I feel you did something to be disrespectful, it will show in your speaker points (25-26).

Other than that, I generally give out 28s-30s to speakers.

I have judged PF in one tournament to-date. I prefer to judge novice, as I am one also.

During the round, I do my best to note each speaker's stated contention/construct/rebuttal, and I consider whether each team has supported their contentions with reputable sources. Additionally, I make a notation regarding the speaker's effectiveness in conveying their argument and their overall presentation, including their ability to articulate well. Words matter, so I have a hard time when filler words are frequently used. (um, uh, like, etc...)

In the feedback portion, I try to highlight at least one positive for each speaker and provide constructive criticisms when warranted.

Please add me to the email chain: debate.zhu@gmail.com

Public Forum

General Note

This event was created as an accessible alternative to policy debate, and I will judge as such. I will value and consider the arguments presented on the flow; however, I am not the judge to present blippy, under-developed, card-dumps to.

Round structure

1) Make sure to not go overtime. I will stop flowing and not consider any arguments presented after your time has elapsed.

2) Defense is not sticky. You should be extending all of your arguments in each round. If you do not carry through your arguments into each speech I will not magically carry it over for you.

3) Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments presented in first rebuttal as well as your opponents case.

4) No new in the two.

5) Read theory and kritiks at your own risk; however, I am partial towards Schopenhauer.

6) Impacts are essential. It is your responsibility to make it clear why your arguments are important and which ones should decide the outcome of the round. If you do not have an impact, you do not have a reason for me to value the argument.

7) If there are competing frameworks or definitions, it is important to establish at the top of the speech which interpretation I should be taking and why. Do not just extend through ink without any nuance.

8) In a similar vein, it is essential that you compare your arguments. A simple repetition of your arguments is not nearly as convincing as clear weighing that shows why I should choose your side.

9) I will not intervene unless you leave me absolutely no choice but to end up picking a side without any help from the debaters. I do not want to do this and you do not want me to do this so make sure you have clear and comparative weighing throughout the debate.

Views on evidence

1) I will approach the round tabula rasa, so it is your responsibility to make it clear when your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence.

2) I am ok with paraphrasing; however, misrepresentation will be reflected in your speaks and round result.

3) Have your evidence ready. If your opponents ask you for evidence you should be able to produce it within a minute. After that you are wasting my time and your opponents time.

4) A last name and year is not a sufficient presentation of your evidence. I expect to hear at least the full name, month, year, and organization. Additional qualifications of the author are also recommended.