Overview Stuff:

She/They

Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.

March/April 22 specifics:

I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.

Quick Prefs:

Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1

Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)

Non postmodern K’s: 3

Identity K's: 2

Phil: 2-3

Tricks: 5.

Cliffnotes:

Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.

ALSO

Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P

More in depth stuff:

LARP: Hell yeah. This is the good stuff right here. For most of my Debate career, policy/LARP arguments were my bread and butter. I love fun/spicy plans/counterplans, and will vote off of most any type of plan/counterplan. I have nothing against agent cps, delay cps, consult cps, or anything else of the like. If you’re running a plan aff, still be prepared to answer topicality. Just because I think it’s topical doesn’t mean you no longer have the burden to prove you’re topical. I really enjoy arguments that I haven’t seen before, and am always willing to talk about geo-engineering after the round. All of that being said, be prepared to answer argumentation that calls fiat into judgement, and I will accept that none of your plan actually occurs even post fiat given the proper argumentation.

Theory/Topicality: Also a huge fan of these forms of arguments. I’ve been known to extempt and collapse on theory, often going for what others might call frivolous theory. I’ll vote on anything with paradigm issues and voters, so make sure you tell me in the theory shell how I or your opponent should deal with it. Same thing goes for topicality. I’m not a huge fan of Nebel-T, but that hasn’t stopped me from winning rounds on it. Go for the RVIs too, those debates are often exciting and get into meta-theory really quickly, which I personally like. Yet again, I have a high threshold for arguments like “evaluate the ____ after the ______,” but won’t just drop them on face.

Tricks: Aight boiz, here’s where things get kind of tricky. Tricks, unfortunately, are real arguments, and I, unfortunately, will vote off of them. With that being said, if your form of tricks is running twenty different spikes layered throughout case, I’m probably not the judge for you. Spikes are ableist, and unless you say “spikes on the bottom,” and proceed to put spikes on the bottom, I’ll have a super low threshold for answering any of the spikes, and will heavily dock your speaks for it. However, I also think tricks can be really fun. Nail-bomb cases and fun theory or pre fiat offense is always fun, whether it be solving a rubick’s cube or doing Tik-Tok dances for the ballot.

K’s: Go for em, run ‘em. I’m most familiar with afropess/wake work/queer futurity/queer pess/queer rage/Baudrillard/Set-Col/Hauntology/Libidinal economy stuff/Necropolitics/Gillespie/Most epistemological or metaphysical applications on ontology and am currently reading D+G, but don’t let that stop you from running your K. Regardless if I’m familiar with your K or not, you still have to explain it fully in round. I won’t vote off of something that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. I honestly don’t really get what the difference between the role of the judge and the role of the ballot is, but go for it anyway, just explain it please :) (also K's have real world ramifications feel free to LARP about those if you want idc)(Edelman> Muñoz).

Phil: I enjoy philosophy a lot outside of debate, and am always open to talk about it. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of phil arguments in round. Things can get really nitpicky, and people end up yelling at one another about how human evolution dictates emotion, and often stumble into making arguments that are perturbing at best and eugenicist at worst. Yet again, if you like em, go for em. Just explain them. I’m probably familiar with any philosopher you’re reading, even if it’s postmodern. Hegel is annoying. Locke and Kant are both ableist, and Kant is racist, but you can still run em if you want. Please read problem of induction against LARP cases its such a good arg that functions as terminal defense.

Speed stuff: I haven't debated in a hot minute, but I've been doing spreading drills every now and again just cuz. I should be able to understand you just fine, but if my comprehension skills are more rusty than I think, I will call clear twice before I stop flowing. That being said, you should be good for anything speedwise.

Speaks: I think I give decently high speaks most of the time, but also am not scared to give 25s because of violence in round. I start round at a base level of a 28, and go up or down from there. +.1 speaks for using pog in round B)

Misc. Im always down to talk about whatever before round starts if we're just waiting for something to happen, so here are some of my interests: Music (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pdYJ8smYJSsOCMinuGEL4?si=111f1dc5e0a94d33), postmodern philosophy, drain gang, yeule, lamp, blue period, JJBA, communism, One Piece, bein trans. Also, if you ask me for my email im going to assume you havent read my paradigm, cuz its in here.

Hi! I competed in LD all four years of high school mostly in local circuit debate in Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina. I dabbled in Nat circuit stuff throughout but high key did not enjoy it. I prefer traditional style LD, but I also understand most of the progressive stuff so don't feel like you have to change your style if that's what you're comfortable with. I'm good with all speeds, talk as fast as you want but presentation is important so only speak fast if you do it well. I like a clean flow. Please present rebuttals in the order of the flow and I highly encourage sign posting. My biggest pet peeve is debaters who try to belittle and degrade their opponent. If you are good, there is no need to be arrogant or rude, let your arguments do the work. Respect is key y'all. I weigh framework and value clash really heavily as I prefer trad LD so please emphasize that a lot throughout the round. Explain why you should win based off of your framework and make sure you include it in your voting issues. ~Also~ if your arguments or language are in any way racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or inherently discriminatory I'm gonna vote you down so ya don't do that.

Hey everyone!

Email: edelves22@gmail.com

I have been debating for about six years now (7th - 12th Grade). I did PF for about a year, and now I do LD and love it! My paradigm is pretty simple, and I can't wait to judge your rounds!

1. I don't do progressive debate. Plans, Counter-plans, PIC's, spikes, tricks, kritiks, and spreading will all hurt you and lose the round. These can make for interesting debate at an advanced level, but I did not learn it this way. I judge what I understand, and I understand traditional debate.

2. My primary judging criteria is dropped arguments. If you respond to everything and manage your time well, you will do great!

3. Have good evidence, clear links to your arguments, and make sure to bring it all back to the framework in the end.

4. Persuasion and effective rhetoric is important to me for speaks. Disrespect will lose you speaks.

5. Use cross to your advantage. Ask questions that have a purpose behind them. I love segments from cross coming back later in the debate.

Good luck to everyone! I can't wait to see you in round.

I'm a bad PF debater

just clash and weigh and itll be all good

I have been judging PFD since 2007. I am a coach and I am currently working with our school's PFD and Congress teams. I would not say that I am an expert, but I have definitely spent a great deal of time helping my students write pro and con cases. I believe that if you talk so fast that I cannot understand your contention, then you didn't say it. I like cases to be clearly signposted; this helps me to keep up with the cases better. I do not like condescension. No one is better just because they come from a school with more resources. Rude behavior of any kind is intolerable. Also, saying something many times does not make it true. I believe a team should clearly link evidence to contentions.

I debated PF for 3 and a half years (graduated 2020). I will flow the round and evaluate progressive arguments, but might get lost since it's been a while.

Speed - Don't talk too quickly. Especially if you are using speed as a weapon against your opponents - I consider that underhanded and will probably drop you. Please signpost when going from warrants to impacts, between cases, etc. so I have a better chance of flowing the way you want me to.

Jargon and Tech - Jargon is fine, but try to convince me as a person rather than a debate-evaluation computer. With that said, the round is way easier and more interesting to judge when both teams compare impacts/weigh.

My email is zfrancis@ad.unc.edu - Feel free to email me before or after the round, or if you have any questions about your feedback.

I'm Ashley (she/her) and I debated for four years at Cary High School, all in LD, and captained my junior/senior years. I'm a senior at UNC Chapel Hill (It's always a GDTBATH!!). I debated mostly traditional and would define myself as a flay and flow-centric judge. Tech > truth. I've been judging in NC a few times a year for about four years now. If you wanna know more about me or have any general questions about college, UNC, debate, etc. I'd be happy to answer before or after round. This is a learning experience for everyone and I look forward to learning from yall!

Add me to the email chain: akat2468@gmail.com

My general judge philosophy:

1) I will buy all evidence read unless it's contested in round. If it becomes an issue, I'll call for it at the end of round. If you are deliberately violating evidence ethics, I'll drop you from the round with the lowest speaks tab allows. Don't do it :)

EDIT for Caviler Invitational 2024: Make sure you're familiar with the NSDA evidence rules because we have to follow those.

2) Zero-tolerance policy for misconduct within a round. Don't make your opponent uncomfortable or unsafe. Kindness and politeness go a long way and are part of the speech and debate experience. Treat each other and everyone else throughout the day (team parents, teammates, coaches, volunteers, judges, etc) with the respect and kindness that they deserve. Don't forget that you represent your school as well as yourself.

3) Let me know beforehand if you're running trad or circuit so your opponent and myself can brace ourselves accordingly. If you're a circuit debater and Armando Bacot dunk on your inexperienced trad opponent I am going to be so very unhappy and it will be reflected in your speaks. Trad/circuit style clashes are a painful experience for everyone so try and make it as painless as possible. I have a high-ish threshold for extinction impacts so make sure your link chain is strong.

4) You can spread if you want. If you spread, you must disclose and you must speak clearly. I don't back flow off the speech doc during yalls prep time because that's unfair to the other debater. So, if you're unintelligible in round don't expect high speaks from me. I'm not an audio processor. However, I will look at the speech doc to fill in points that I managed to get on my flow during round and check evidence.

5) I have an expressive face, don't get scared!

6) If the framework debate is a wash or if there is no framework presented, I default to util and weigh the round accordingly.

7) If you are a high level circuit debater and want to run a super tricky prog round you might want to strike me because I don't have the capacity or experience to give your case the evaluation it deserves.

8) I don't flow cross. That is each debater's time to use as they please, whether it's for clarification questions, evidence questions, or beginning to develop an argument, so it doesn't factor into my RFD.

9) Keep your own time.

10) Have fun and be silly if you want!! Life isn't so serious and neither is debate.

Ways to earn speaks:

1) Style. Enunciate your words and be rhetorically advanced.

2) Clarity.

3) Cleverness !

4) Word economy.

Competed in high school LD for 4 years. Currently compete in British Parliamentary for Duke University. I primarily competed in traditional tournaments so I am the best at evaluating those types of argumentation. I am fine with most speeds so long as each word is properly enunciated.

tech > truth

I will cast my ballot based on who I believe is "winning the flow." To me, that's not necessarily who's winning the most arguments on the flow, but who has done work analyzing and weighing the arguments they are winning under a reasonable framing. Insofar as that's true, having clear and fleshed out extensions and crystallization is really important to winning my ballot.

I think framework debate is irrelevant in most rounds I've judged where debaters spent the longest on it and extremely relevant in most rounds I've judged where debaters spent the least amount of time on it. Do not over nor under value framing.

Please ask me any further questions before the round starts. If the tournament allows it, I will give an oral RFD after the round, but here is my email if you have any further questions after that: jack.morgenstein@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.

I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.

T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

I'm a parent judge for speech. What I'm looking for in speech is fairly simple: well-prepared, having a clear idea and conveying your idea precisely to the audience.

Other previous experiences: I'm used to be a parent judge for Lay LD debate. I’m looking for clear but not too fast speeches, sharp questions and responses in cross examinations, and strong rebuttals. I'm also expecting well-prepared cards and at the same time being interested in how you are engaging your logical thinking in the debate. Besides all the debate techniques, respecting your opponent is also key to my judgement.

I have done LD for the last 3 years at Apex Friendship High. I'm okay with pretty much everything; K's, theories, counter-plans are all fine. Speed-wise, be clear but understand that I cannot flow what I cannot hear, your opponent probably won't be able to either.

Don't bring up anything new in the 2AR, but you can respond in the 2NR to arguments made in the 1AR.

Voters: Give me reasons to vote for you. Tell me how I should weight the round.

Good luck!

Hi everyone, I'm Zoe! :) I'm a senior at Apex Friendship High School, and I've been a PF debater for 3 years (sorry to the collective groans I just received from LD). To put it in brief, I'm a flow judge (perhaps understandably for my background) -- the round will be judged solely on what YOU say, there should be a clear narrative and weighing, and a condensed line-by-line will be your best friend.

Although it goes without saying, respect is my top priority in round. Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or otherwise offensive speech (as well as personal attacks on your opponent) will slash your speaks and give you a very low chance of winning. Debate should be a civil, safe and uplifting environment, not a toxic one (I mean come on, it's 2020).

To get to my preferences...

Overall

Typical stuff really.

I'm pretty good with speed -- to a reasonable extent. If you choose to spread know you run the risk of me not getting all of your arguments down, and thus I won't know if your opponent never respond to them. I won't back flow, so if there's a number or impact you really want me to get down, slow it down a little and emphasize. Also, don't let your speed keep your opponent from the debate.

The judge shouldn't determine how your round is structured, so debate how you're most confident debating, but be aware the burden is on you to make the flow clean and make it an easy ballot. A complicated theory case won't earn you any points if you don't have a followable narrative, and I'll default to a strict off-the-flow C/B analysis if the round isn't clear. (See further down for more formatting prefs)

I will call for evidence if it's highly contested, but like all things in round, it's your responsibility to get it to this point. If something seems wacky in your opponent's card, but you never address it, I'll flow it in the round and weigh it. I'm not interfering with personal thoughts (I know we all hate it when that happens).

Also as a quick disclaimer: I don't hide my reactions well. If you see me reacting to your speech, that's totally normal. It may help to give you an idea of how I'm receiving your points.

Intricacies

On Framework:

There should be framework clash. If you don't address your opponent's framework I'll assume you agree with it and flow it through the round to weigh against yours. You should be telling me early on why I should be voting for your framework over your opponent's.

On Cards:

I'm a strong believer in debate being more than a formula, so I'd prefer to hear some genuine weighing rather than extending 13 cards. I don't anticipate this being a problem in LD, and I'm definitely supportive of highlighting the key pieces of evidence or arguments your opponent dropped, but just know you don't need to rattle off a list of all the cards in round. As I mentioned, I can and will flow if you do this, but please don't feel obligated. Also, don't refer to your cards as simply the source you got them from (i.e. talk about what the card says rather than simply saying Washpo).

On Speeches:

There should be no new arguments in 2NR or 2AR. It's tempting, but I won't flow them, and they'll just eat up time you could be using elsewhere. Extending through ink is one of my biggest pet peeves, so make sure if your opponent responded to your claim that you address this attack with new evidence or logic. I love a line-by-line debate, so take that as you will, but make sure to condense as the round goes on. Signposting is a must, and I'm cool with quick off-time roadmaps (emphasis on the quick). Weighing is a MUST in 2Rs, and any time before then is just extra clarity for my flow. I always prefer logic to be backed up with ample evidence, but if the logic link goes un-responded to it will have some weight (just perhaps less than evidence would).

On Progressive Debate:

I'm a PF debater. (Is that all I need to say?) In short -- I'm not too experienced on Ks or Theory or Tricks, so I'd heavily prefer these to not be in round. I want to judge you to the fairest of my ability based on your skills and my skills lack in this area. With that being said, if you're still really into the idea of running them, go for it, but make sure I'm on the same page as you. Over-explain and treat me like a lay judge.

Finally, on Ballots:

Condense. There's no reason I should be voting off of 12 sub-arguments that found their way into the debate. Again, I can if it comes to this, but I find it messy and an ungratified end to the debate. In 2R, find your key arguments and give me a reason to weigh the round based on those arguments. Clean up the ballot and seal the W. That's all there is to it.

--

If you have any questions before round please feel free to ask me. I'm more than happy to talk after round and provide feedback within the guidelines of the tournament as well. I know this activity can be challenging, so just do the best you can and have fun!

Good luck!