Hey everyone!

LD Paradigm

Yes to email chain - rohitdayanand8@gmail.com

My name is Rohit (he/him) and I debated for Monta Vista High School from 2019-2023 in LD, gaining 5 career bids to the TOC and qualling my junior and senior year. My preferred debating style in high school was more towards policy debate, as I mainly competed on the west coast, but I believe I’d be pretty fair in evaluating most styles of debate. As I judge more, the prefs below should become less and less relevant.

Quick pref guide for LD

1. LARP-style args - cps, das, plan

1: Good topic specific t debates

2: kritiks - IR, Setcol, Afropess,

1-2: Topical Phil Debates

3-4: Pomo, High theory

3-4: Tricks, blippy incoherent theory,

Speaks are at my discretion so don’t ask for higher speaks in round- ill try to average at a 28.5

PF Paradigm

Do what you do / look at the LD paradigm. If I’m judging at a traditional tournament and you’re running a K against a novice team - you might win but your speaks will not.

Yes roadmaps keep it brief

I'm cofortable with kritiks, theory, and speed - please send docs

do contextual analysis -

Weighing is important - and I don't just mean magnitude, timeframe, or scope what I mean is actual analysis to why if you win your argument it's more important/turns your opponents internal links

pranav.kalkunte@gmail.com

The Greatest Conceivable Pranav Kalkunte exists and determines morality!

1] Ontology - there are 2 conditions for existence, existence in mind, and in reality. A being that exists, in reality, is definitionally greater than something that doesn’t exist. Thus, if the GCPK exists only in the mind but does not in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than the GCPK. But we can’t conceive of something greater than the GCPK by definition. Thus, if the GCPK exists in the mind, then the GCPK exists in reality.

2] Motion- Objects are in motion. Everything in motion was put in motion by something else that is moving. There must be a first mover, and that is the GCPK. The alternative is an infinite regress, something relies on the further back and there is no starting point.

3] Contingency- there are 2 forms of being, a necessary and a contingent being. An existence is contingent if it is based on the existence of something else. Not everything is contingent, because then, by definition, it all could have never existed. Thus, the necessary being exists, a being that can’t not exist. The necessary being is GCPK.

4] Degrees - Properties come in degrees. In order for there to be degrees of morality, there must be something perfect against which everything else is measured. The GCPK is the pinnacle of perfection against which everything else is measured.

5] Teleology- essence precedes existence- everything has a purpose. A cup exists to hold water and is made so by purposeful design. To be purposeful, there needs to be a creator of purpose, which is the GCPK.

6] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the GCPK since disobeying the GCPK’s will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent GCPK is only instrumentally bad.

7] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make concedes the authority of the GCPK and collapses to me.

Thus, we ought to remain in consistency with the GCPK’s will and the GCPK’s will is infinitely good.

kelvinmeng07@gmail.com

1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil

Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.

Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.

Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.

I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.

Lay Debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is Jack Miller, I've been a LD debater for 4 years. I've qualled to NSDA nationals twice, qualled to TOC twice, and placed top 3 in lots of different national circuit tourneys. I care less about what you read and more about how you read it; idc what the framing and contentions are as long as its executed well. Just win the flow and I'll vote for you.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args
-LBL>large overviews that just concede args (i.e. please dont give a 2nr where you just extend everything thru ink and say "voter" a lot)
-Framing isnt a voter, you need to win contention level offense under it otherwise its just a presumption ballot.

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

Circuit Judging

About Me

Hey everyone! For those of you who couldn't tell, my name is, in fact, not Pegasus Mitusbishi Fitzgerald - it's Jack Miller. I am currently a rising senior from a small school in Oklahoma (ACCS). My decisions in debate very much center around strategy, so I've read a very eclectic range of arguments—everything ranging from a myriad of phil affs, to trix and friv theory, to pess and debate bad—so I am happy to evaluate whatever type of round you want.

Ideological Overview

One of my strongest beliefs in debate is that the flow is the sole determiner of who should win the round, so my goal as a judge will always be to render the most objective and equitable decision possible. I don't ever want a debater to feel like they have to accommodate to me—read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round presented in front of me. Of course, I am not omniscient so I naturally understand some arguments more than others (i.e. I am probably the worst at evaluating larp vs larp), but I will always consciously attempt to detach myself from any biases or predispositions I have. In summary, you can read whatever arguments you want as long as you win them on the flow and implicate them as justifications for voting in a particular way.

I don't care how fast you go, but if I can't understand you, I will shout clear. I would also prefer if you included analytics in docs since it ensures with certainty that I won't any miss arguments, but if you decide not to, I'll still do my best to toggle on my inner flow-bot.

Judges who I've always liked and strive to judge similar to: JP, Castillo, Taj, Sam Azbel, Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Scopa, Aqin, Leedrew, Austin Broussard, Joey Georges, and pretty much every other tab judge on the circuit. If you like the judges listed above, you will hopefully like me.

Quick Pref Shortcut

Prefs are hell to do at most tourneys, so if you are feeling time-crunched or lazy, here's a TLDR as to what I feel most comfortable evaluating:
1. Phil, Theory/T, K, K Affs, Trix.
2. Policy (this is for policy vs policy; I feel very comfortable evaluating policy vs Phil/K and don't lean in either direction)

Specific Arguments

Kritiks

Overview: I've read a lot of Ks throughout my career and think they have the potential to be very strategic. The lit bases/Ks I'm familiar with are disability (Mollow, Fritsch, St. Pierre, Hughes, Campbell, and pretty much every other author that is read in debate), Deleuze, Baudrillard, Berardi, Edelman, Lacan, Setcol, Cap, Security, Afropessimism, Grove, Bataille, Weyhelie, Cybernetics, Onticide, Virilio, Baldwin, James, and utopian authors like Munoz. HOWEVER, you should not take this as an excuse for not explaining arguments - I'll still have the same threshold for extensions as normal.

Specific Preferences:
-Word PIKs are strategic
-Not a huge fan of author indicts or other ad homs.
-

K Affs

Theory

Overview: I read lots of theory throughout my career and think it's incredibly strategic in a lot of circumstances. Here are some of my specific thoughts on theory:
1. I am of the belief that there is no such thing as friv theory - if you win a theoretical arg then it's just as valid as any other. However, feel free to make arguments to the contrary in the round and persuade me otherwise.
2. If you are going for reasonability, PLEASE provide a reasonability brightline! Otherwise, I don't know how to evaluate what is reasonable, and I'll probably be very compelled by arguments as to why I should reject reasonability without a brightline.
3. RVIs are coherent and people should read them more often. I don't know why they have such a negative stigma to be honest. In most cases, they waste the opponent's time at worst, and can win the round at best.

Trix: Like I mentioned in the ideological overview, I will evaluate any argument with a warrant (no matter how bad it is), so yes I will evaluate trix. I've gone for a lot of tricky arguments and honestly find this style of debate to be super fun in moderation. Here's some things to keep in mind:
1. I am a philosophy geek and am particularly interested in things like formal logic and skeptical problems, so there's a good chance that I've read entire articles about whatever trick you are going for. This is not to say that you should under-explain arguments; I am simply saying that you shouldn't feel pressured to shy away from esoteric arguments or condense claims into incoherence for the sake of explanatory ease.

Policy: This is the style of debate I am least familiarity with because I never enjoyed reading these arguments myself, so I have much less first-hand experience with it. However, I do still feel very familiar with the Policy vs K/Phil debate, and think extinction outweighs is one of the stronger arguments in debate. Here's some miscellaneous thoughts and things to keep in mind if you are reading a policy aff or DAs/CPs in front of me:
-Even if the 2NR is 6-minutes on T, you still need to extend case—It feels arbitrary to disregard args that aren't extended in every instance except for a 2AR vs T. HOWEVER, saying "extend case, it was conceded" will suffice.
-In a lot of scenarios, I think 1AR framework + weigh case is the right 2AR rather than the perm (i.e. the perm is pretty incoherent vs pess in my opinion). However, I do still think spamming perms is a good time suck, and am a big fan of creative, strategic perms.
-I think multiple condo is probably bad but you can easily win otherwise. I also really enjoy hearing CP theory debates.

Speaks

Speaks are a referendum of how well you debate, not how well you talk. If you make strategic pivots, smart arguments, demonstrate good time allocation, make arguments efficiently, implicate claims well, and display impressive round vision, I promise you that it will be reflected in your speaks.

Safety

As I stated at the start of my paradigm, I am an incredibly tab judge, and will evaluate any arguments presented. However, if anything makes you uncomfortable in any way, please let me know (you can text me at 405-763-7778 if you would like to do it discreetly but quickly) and I will immediately stop the round and figure out the best course of action.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Defaults

If no arguments are made on a particular issue, I'll default to the following:

Ev Ethics

I would prefer you to just debate it out if its a insignificant rule like not having a link to an article.

CX

1. CX is binding just like any other speech. I highly doubt I will evaluate any arguments to the contrary (to clarify, you can argue about the semantics of what was said and the implications if it, but just not blatantly choosing to sever out of what has been said.
2. Prep can be CX but CX can't be used as extra prep.
3. I don't flow CX (by default - if you want me to flow, tell me and I will), but I'll listen and will write down anything that you flag as important.

Traditional/Locals Paradigm

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

hi! im yesh

sophomore at san mateo class of 24! i qualled to the TOC in LD both years if its relevant

updated for middle school toc

yeshraofc@gmail.com for the chain although i prefer speech drop

read anything! i've gone for / debated against everything and think i won't be predisposed to any particular style of arguments

Policy Arguments: I'm good for these! impact calculus wins rounds, the 2nr should answer the aff and win either a substantial risk of cp solvency with at least some risk of a disad, or a large risk of a disad with small risk of the aff. Impact calculus should be the top of the 2nr, turns case arguments are underutilized and win rounds. Limited intrisicness is almost always arbitrary. Theoretical objections to most counterplans could better be read as perms/cp competition arguments but I'm okay listening to them as theory arguments too. I'll judge kick the counterplan if you tell me to and any 2ar reason I shouldn't might not be the best time investment but up to you

Theory: Also good for this! The 2ar/2nr on theory should spend the vast majority of your time doing internal link comparison and weigh between standards. I think weighing between voters like fairness and education is less persuasive, most standards have internals to both and are more nuanced. I'm good for 1ar shells but I do think they should have some development in the 1ar to be a complete argument. I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no rvi's. These are changed with arguments in the contrary but it's just to have a standardized way to think about rounds.

Phil: Probably the thing I've gone for least but one of the things I wish more people went for! I understand Kant, Hobbes, and Prag to an extent. I'd love to see you go for anything else but I'd suggest assuming that I don't understand it and go from there. I usually read util affs but I've also read/gone for kant and prag so I'm good for both sides of that debate in most instances!

Kritiks: I think I'm a lot better for this than my argumentative history may suggest but admittedly I don't know about most literature bases. I'd love to hear a good 2nr on any kritik or a k aff and won't be ideologically opposed to it in any way. I would like if the 1nc includes a framework block because LD makes the weigh case debate very very muddled if late breaking.

Non T Affs: I have gone for these a few times and think I'm okay for them. I'm better for impact turns to framework / reasons abdicating the resolution is valuable OVER defense to negative offense and less true I meet's. I've gone for 2NRs on both limits/fairness and skills but I think skills is more persuasive for me.

Speaks: I average a 28.5, and will go up/down from there. Speaks are based on strategic choices and persuasion. To get higher speaks, be nice in cx and make rounds easier to evaluate!

Email me if you have any other questions! 

Update: The only argument I particularly feel comfortable evaluating nowadays is quantum monism. I do not have a desire to learn the topic, but I do have a desire to be Parmenides. Which I already am. Because monism is true.

Hi! I'm Sophia. I debate(d) for Prospect '24 and won some tournaments. I qualified to the TOC 3 times with 16 bids and was top speaker my junior year. I ran pretty much everything from phil to policy to theory to tricks. I'm less familiar with Ks, but I'm willing to vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact. I am probably the worst for a dense policy round or a K v K round.

Check out win-debate.org and circuitdebater.org!

For the email chain: ineedadebateemaillol [at] gmail [dot] com -- please have your subject line be "Tournament Name - Round X Aff Code vs Neg Code" and I'll +0.1 speaks

Quick prefs sheet: phil = theory = tricks > policy > K

General

I do not default unless the round is completely irresolvable. If you read theory, read your own paradigm issues or the shell has no impact. Similarly, you should be reading presumption and permissibility arguments if you plan to specifically trigger them. I will presume the side of least change and truth testing, although I'd rather not use my defaults.

CX/flex is binding

I don't vote on callout affs or ad homs

I would prefer evidence ethics to be run as a shell, not a stake. If it's a panel and the other two judges decide to evaluate it as a stake, I will use the NSDA guidelines

If your eyes don't move up from your computer your speaks aren't moving up either

If you're hitting a novice, be nice and slow down -- you don't necessarily have to change the arguments you read, just be slower. If it's your bubble or an elim, do whatever you need to win

"I may adopt the judging habits of the worst judge your school brought to this tournament. Such fun!" - Yao Yao

Policy

By the time you're reading this I definitely do not have a good understanding of whatever the topic is

0 risk is a thing

Judge kick only if you tell me to

Phil

Definitely my favorite style

I like the NC-AC strategy and skepticism

Calc indicts do not prove your theory is true, only that your opponent's is wrong

Familiar with most authors in debate, but don't assume I'm familiar with your buzzwords, examples/contextualization will be awarded with good speaks

Most of your metaethics are not actually metaethics but also please weigh your fake metaethics against the other fake metaethics

Extinction and Pascal's wager are underutilized and probably take out many frameworks/skep NCs

Epistemic schmodesty?

K

If I look confused that's because I am

Affs should get to weigh case vs the K, specific links > state bad/theory of power C/As

Non-T/pseudo topical vs T-FW -- was always on the side of T, T does not seem more violent than any other position read against the aff, presumption is good, know what your aff says and don't dodge in CX. I am not sure if fairness is an impact anymore, but this is likelier because of tricky reasons than critical ones

Explanation should be in the LBL not some 3 minute long overview that has an excess of buzzwords

I don't care for floating PIKs. Put the text in the 1NC or they're not a real argument. 2AR gets new floating PIKs bad

I know a decent amount of K lit to understand the K side of a phil v K debate -- topic links are underused and should be in the 1NC

T/Theory

Good for any friv shells

Read paradigm issues; I won't default for you

I probably err neg on 1AR theory -- I find 2ARs way too new on some issues to really feel comfortable voting on it. if you're neg, tell me why I shouldn't let the 1AR blow up shells and I will gladly oblige. If you're aff, having a non-blippy theory argument in the 1AR will probably heg against this

I am quite skeptical of identity-based arguments (e.g., must not run condo vs x identity, CI because they are ableist, etc.). I think there is a difference between saying "Comic sans is a good font since other fonts are hard to read which has a terminal of ableism" (fine) vs "You should drop them for being ableist toward me because they read a definition in their T shell and I have ADHD which means I can't understand definitions" (what?)

Calling something an "independent voter/voting issue" does not make it one, and the more blippy IVIs I see, the more likely I am to independently vote for your opponent

Refer to the tricks section for what I think counts as a warrant

Tricks

P1: Tricks are for kids; P2: You are a kid; C: They're alright, I guess

Please signpost, I am not going to flow off the doc for you -- if I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist

I would heavily prefer "substantive" tricks e.g. the Boltzmann brain paradox, principle of explosion, etc. to "theoretical" tricks -- I often think the latter does not have a warrant. asserting that there is a "7-4-6-3 time skew" is just restating LD times, not why I should evaluate a debate after [X] speech, and I have no problem saying I did not vote on something because it has no warrant

I think that a good tricks debate is enjoyable in the sense that there are a lot of technical interactions but a bad tricks debate (random hidden stuff, no clash, etc.) is not going to be good for speaks

Must not punch me theory is very boring please diversify thank you

"The 2AR is after all the speeches before it" - Tej (I only evaluate after the 2AR)

"I get confused a lot when judging. Especially if you are a tricky little goblin." - Daniel

Speaks

27-30

I don't vote on the speaks spike. I will dock speaks if you ask

Hi, I'm Julia, but you can call me Jules or Jae. I use any/all pronouns so knock yourself out.

I've done debate for six going on seven years. I'm mainly an LD debater but have done PF and CX in the past. I started out as a traditional debater, so that's something I am well versed in, but Larp is what I'm the most comfortable with. With that being said, here are my preferences.

1) Larp/Theory

2) Trad.

3) Non-traditional K's/Trix/Phil

Speaks: I'm pretty laid back when it comes to speaks. I grade on the (25-30) scale. If you spread and/or run any sort of progressive content without my or your opponent's permission you will get an automatic 25, no questions asked. Same thing with any kind of sexist, racist, or homophobic slur or anything of that nature. I'm fine with cursing, as long as it's in your card. Cursing at either me or your opponent will result in an automatic 25. If you manage to make a Taylor Swift reference sometime in round, I'll give you at least 28 speaks.

Spreading: Spreading is fine, just please send me a speech doc if you plan to do so.

My email is juliayangfb@gmail.com

Other notes: Tech>Truth. Don't just tell me I should vote for you because you won a specific thing. Tell me how and why you won it. Extensions are incredibly important, but please don't try to bring up already dropped arguments for me to extend, I won't count them. In other news, I like clash. Clash is good and I will vote off of it. But please don't try to be purposefully aggressive to create clash. Don't try to defend your whole case throughout the entire round. Collapsing to only one or two arguments is perfectly fine. I will not vote off the framework debate alone. Please impact weigh!!!!! Finally, please be mindful of who your opponent is. You forfeit your right to complain about a loss the minute you spread or run progressive on a novice.

My discord is acreamcolouredteacup#5631 if you need to contact me or have any other questions.

With all of that said, good luck and may the odds forever be in your favor.

Introduction

High school varsity debater in Congressional Debate, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I qualified for the State Competition during my Freshman year and was the 2022 Region 5 State Champion. Regarding my judging experience, I've served as a Parliamentarian for Congressional Debate and have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas in the past.

To preface, I've divided my paradigm into three subsections: Congress, PF, and LD. If you have any questions regarding my paradigm please don't hesitate to ask.

Congressional Debate

Presiding Officer, maintain control over the chamber, this I cannot stress enough. Don't allow speakers to speak longer than they have to or questioners to question longer than they need to. Urge the chamber to keep questions and answers short but more importantly, to be concise. You must understand parliamentarian procedure especially if you're the presiding officer. If you use geography as a way to select speakers instead of precedence and recency I won't hesitate to drop you because the geography method often if not always, disadvantages competitors in the chamber. But the big thing is to maintain control.

For timing, I do highly recommend that you'll strictly use the Gavel Method but if you use a different method such as the Reflection Method, I will be docking points because that method focuses more on reflection instead of allowing speakers/Senators/Representatives to extemp or write rebuttals.

Speeches, Authorship and sponsorship speeches should be strong and prove solvency on why that legislation should be passed. The first negation should tackle points made by the authorship/sponsorship and why the legislation will damage the status quo instead of benefit it. After the authorship/sponsorship and first negation, I look for rebuttals that are made with confidence and sources. If you provide a crystalization speech then I look for it to be clear, concise, get to the point, but thorough, most of all, it must ensure that the legislation does have solvency if it's a crystal in the affirmation or why the legislation overall fails if it's a crystal in the negation.

Delivery, especially in Congress, it's often not solely based on what you say but how you say it. If you come off arrogant or ignorant then I'll most likely be harsher as a judge but I do want to make it clear that there is a distinct difference between being loud/aggressive and speaking with urgency. I do also look for good rhetoric and confidence in what you're saying but for rank scores, this won't be the deciding factor. Most of all, eye contact, don't give speeches that are too pre-written, think of your feet and adapt to your environment, or in this case, adapt to your chamber.

Questioning, I understand that some judges do prefer questioning to exploit flawed arguments but I often consider questioning to be a scholarly discussion. Don't ask to prove a point, ask to understand their side of the argument, and especially in direct questioning, most of all, you shouldn't be rebutting in questioning, that should be saved for your speech. For indirect questioning, don't ask filler questions and ask questions that would further the debate or questions that allow for more information to be presented.

Be polite, don't be aggressive, and when answering questions don't come off as arrogant or make a questioner feel embarrassed by their question.

Overall, please be respectful to everyone in the chamber. Make your impacts clear and provide unique arguments because I will drop those who give non-unique arguments or rehash. But the most important thing is to allow the debate to move forward. I will favor those more who make the effort to flip sides or take the initiative to speak if no one else chooses to.

Public Forum

I don't flow crossfire, the only instance in which I do is when it's brought up in a speech afterward.

Next, I'm going to quote my coach on something we both agree on being evidence. If you aren't able to produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence during the round then I won't flow it. I highly recommend all competitors to be organized to quickly pull up source info if it's requested or asked. I won't make you use prep time to find cards unless we get behind on time since it tends to be a stressful situation.

For speed, I'm a fast speaker myself but if you choose to spread I urge you to ensure that your opponents are also fine with that. With that in mind, fast doesn't correlate with strong arguments, if you can present strong arguments and impact them on why your arguments are stronger then I will flow your side.

When it comes to weighing, sticking the words "magnitude" and "scope" won't be enough to win my ballot. I urge you to weigh your arguments and the arguments made by your opponents in your speech and clearly explain why it's important to vote for your side, be detailed and clear.

Tech vs. Truth, in full honesty I'm more fond of tech but at the end of the day, please make sure you're not misconstruing evidence and are able to explain your arguments and warrants extremely well.

Finally, I'm not the biggest fan of single contention cases as they often lack persuasion and decimate the quality of debate but if you choose to run a single contention case, it should have subsections and thorough reasoning.

Overall, debate, especially in Public Forum, is meant to be inclusive for competitors to have fun and to be able to learn more about a topic so please don't be aggressive, rude, or offensive in a round, I do have an exception for cross-ex because I understand that there are times when it gets heated.

Lincoln Douglas

I have a preference for traditional LD debates but if you're a circuit debater up against a traditional debater then I urge you to not overwhelm them with rhetoric because that isn't fun for either the competitor or the judge since the debate will fail to move forward.

For larp, I do believe it promotes an educational debate and promotes strong clash but only if it's done well. If you can execute it and provide strong arguments, it would most likely be the best way to get my ballot.

Next, the philosophical element. As you should know, Lincoln Douglas is considered a mixture to some extent of philosophy and moral debate, I do appreciate philosophy but don't allow that to be your only factor and try to contribute clash to allow the debate to move forward. That being said, if your arguments mainly focus on philosophy, I urge you to be clear when explaining them and provide clear and concise links.

Kritik, not sure where to begin with this one... I enjoy judging Kritik and overall it's extremely useful unless they're pre-fiat so if you do run a Kritik, I urge you to be able to back it up and be detailed to sell it to me.

Now we have theory, often it's meant to be counter abuse and I don't find it beneficial in a round that allows the debate to be furthered, I'll flow it but it tends to get messy and no offense to those who do run theory, it's often meaningless and doesn't contribute much.

Next, we have my least favorite, Trix, I will flow it and I'll listen to your arguments but under no circumstance do I wish to hear arguments revolving around truth testing but if you do run Trix I will still consider your arguments but you must sell your arguments and show the impacts.

When it comes to spreading, I'm neutral on it and don't have any major opinions but on that note only spread if your opponent is also ok with you spreading.

Moving on to Framework and Impacts, in almost every round I will evaluate the debate under the strongest framework with the strongest and most impactful arguments. Please make sure and I cannot stress this enough that all impacts must be linked to the framework, that being said, impact calculus and comparative worlds are a fantastic way to weigh impacts. Except if your impact doesn't uphold the framework it will most likely be skipped over in my ballot; moreover, I do prefer value/value criterion but I'm open to a regular standard.

Overall, I'm looking for clear arguments, strong links, and confidence in what you're saying. Under no circumstance should you be abusive in the debate and I will dock points for being rude, offensive, hostile, and/or making the opposition uncomfortable but being slightly aggressive in cross-ex is fine cause that's common and I understand that cross-ex can get intense sometimes.

Conclusion

From my years participating on the Debate Team and competing in a variety of unique competitions, I have one overall piece of advice, no matter what competition you're attending, it'll always be a learning experience dedicated to honing your craft whether it's public speaking or analyzation. Have fun and don't waste these opportunities, you never know when you'll have another one.

With that being said, the purpose of debate is meant to be educational, and attempts to "exploit" the other debater doesn't achieve that under any circumstance unless there is a clear flaw.

Finally, in the words of one of the greatest debate coaches I've ever had, "Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all. Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying..."