I am a lay judge.

DON'T SPREAD. I need to be able to understand what you are saying, so that you get the best possible score. I know that doing these debates online has thrown extra technical difficulties into the mix, so it is more important than ever not to spread. It glitches up and I'm unable to understand what you are saying.

Signpost well so I can flow properly.

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

Maysen Brokaw

TLDR: do what you want. I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear-put me on the email chain. Framework is important and I can vibe with progressive args. Respect your opponents or I will drop you.

LD: I am a traditional LD debater. Heavy framework, integrated into your contentions and impacts. I think framework is extremely important so if you win framework, then there’s a high possibility that you win the round. However, case debate is really important too. Turns and defense looks really good along with framework. Impacts are a big deal. If you drop impacts, then you’ll most likely lose the round. Signpost please. I’m okay with any arguments made as long as they can be supported throughout the debate. Be cordial in cross-one of my biggest pet peeves is people trying to talk over each other or be overly aggressive during cross. I’m okay with speed most of the time as long as you are clear. I will yell clear three times before I stop flowing. After the 1AC, I’d like a road map so it is not a messy flow. For the negative, I’m not a big fan on topicality unless it is argued correctly. Plans, Disads, Counterplans are cool. This happens frequently-bringing up new args or impacts in the last affirmative speech. Don’t do it because I won’t weigh it; it is unfair to the negative.

Also, any type of racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally problematic comments will result in a L. It's not tolerated in the speech and debate community.

Hey dudes I'm Jillian

I did debate for three years, 1 year was novice policy at Bentonville HS, and two years were at Bentonville West doing LD. I have won local tournaments, competed at national ones, and was 1st Alt for Nationals last year in LD. Also, I understand all formats so please don't try to trick me because I will know lol.

In terms of LD and PF, I am pretty laid back because I expect you to do the work for me. (aka a flow judge) I would like all arguments to be as flushed out as possible, and I will try my very hardest not to make assumptions or fill in any blanks in someones argument because I see that as unfair. However, you cannot just make unseemly claims and expect me to buy them, especially if they are in any way racist or sexist. (I will for sure vote you down if you are being intentional.)

On the flow, if you drop something, and the other person points out that a) you dropped it and b)why that matters, you will lose that argument. However, if they do not point it out and it goes uncontested, the last argument is the one I will consider at the end. Framework is important because for LD- it is based on values, and PF, it is critical in order to evaluate impacts, but honestly I like case debates so much better. That being said, you cannot win the round if you lose framework.

People should not get below 25 speaker points with me, unless you are extremely triggering or if you concede the round. Also, speed is cool with me because I definitely spoke too fast for most judges but just be as clear as possible, and if I need to I will just ask for evidence or clarification after the speech.

Good luck and have fun!!!!!

Updated 5/7/24 for Post-Season

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue WL, Clear Springs EG, and McNeil AS.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Welcome to my paradigm page, I am very glad to see you here. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS A JUDGE THAT YOU READ THE THINGS THAT I SAY HERE IF YOU WANT TO WIN MY BALLOT:

To start, my credentials are as follows:

-Nationally ranked 7th in Big Question Debate

-The furthest a debater from Arkansas has ever advanced at the NSDA national tournament

-Arkansas State Champion for collegiate debate.

-Various first place trophies in the debate forms Big Question, Public Forum, IPDA, and Congress

With all of these in mind it is safe to say that I am well versed in all debate forms, though I never competed in policy or Lincoln Douglass debate I do have an great understanding of them.

Now, what does it take to win my ballot?

I am a simple guy, I like solid argumentation that is straight up with the topic and I don't want to see poorly thought out, squirrely argumentation. One would think that would be enough said on the issue, but I will outline what that means.

Public Forum:

-I am traditionalist in debate forms. That is to say that in Public Forum, for example, I do not want to see people running Ks, plans, or especially spreading (brisk speaking is not spreading, spreading is marked by the sharp inhale of breath along with a massive amount of speed! Do not do this if you have any hope of winning my ballot, while I can keep up with you, I am a traditionalist and I know what the format calls for. Don't do it!)

-If you want to win my ballot, make logical arguments and impact them out for me. If you use a weighing mech, then keep using it if you want me to vote on it.

Policy:

-Here I expect to see well thought out plans and argumentation. The restrictions that we have on other debate formats is lifted here, so speed, Ks, and plans are all encouraged. Ultimately do what you're supposed to do as a debater you'll have access to my ballot.

LD:

-*See Public Forum in regards to the rules on speaking*

-This is value debate, please do not lose your value.

IPDA:

-This is meant to be friendly and cordial and you will be judged on that. Don't try to bulldoze one another like you would see in another debate format.

Congress:

-Debaters must further debate at all times to gain the latter half of their points. This is to say that what you need to do (after the authorship/sponsorship speech) is not just give me information, but also refute the other side.

-If I see you just giving me the same information as other debaters you will get no more than a 2 in regards to speech quality

BQ:

-This debate is near and dear to my heart, I competed in it at nationals twice and my senior year it is the debate form that I placed 7th in the nation in. Suffice it to say that I know the ins and outs of this debate especially, and that includes the purposes of each speech. If you violate any of the Big Question principles either in speech purpose or via incorrect argumentation I will vote you down without hesitation.

Public Forum, Big Question, IPDA, and Congress debaters: Do not use a slippery slope argument, a plan, or a K on the resolution or I will drop you.

Beyond that, make sure your arguments are topical and impact them out for you, I am a flow judge and I do not shadow extend your arguments for you. You are not Aaron Rodgers and I am not Davante Adams, there will be no Hail Mary arguments caught by me for you to snatch the dub. Other than that, have fun and go catch some Dubs.

About Me:

She/Her

Names I'll answer to: "Angela" is preferred. "Ms. Duggins" is fine.

I am a former college assistant coach and am currently a communication instructor and third-year PhD student in communication and performance.

Feel free to email me with any accessibility accommodation requests ( angela.duggins@siu.edu ).

How I Judge:

I always try to adapt to the weighing mechanism or judging criteria offered in the round.

I keep flow using shorthand. I'm not a fan of spreading, but I can keep up.

I will comment on (culturally mindful) diction and posture for your learning, but it won't factor in to final decision.

I do not tolerate massive facial expressions or pronounced head shaking with the intent of distraction while someone else is speaking. It will bring your speaker points way down.

I will not tolerate personal attacks on your opponent, outright racism, ableism, sexism, or other bigotry. "You people" style blanket statements are never effective. If I notice a potential bias in your argument that you may not be aware of, I will comment on the ballot.

I don't stick around to talk after rounds because I need to write my feedback while I still remember it. It's not that you don't matter. It's an adaptation I have to make.

What I look for:

Clarity. Clear, well-signposted arguments that follow a logical progression. Clear linkage between each point and the resolution and/or thesis.

Courtesy. Respect your opponent's time. Stay audience focused. Define terms that need defining. (Aside: Professionalism does not have a set look or sound) (Second aside: I don't need theatrical greetings at the top of each round, but I'm okay with it if you want to practice)

Creativity. Within reason and with respect for your fellow humans, I encourage you to explore creative arguments and integrate your knowledge of your passions outside of debate.

Advice:

Maintain audience focus. Legitimately care about whether or not those listening understand your position. If you focus on making what you say clear to them, you will focus less on yourself. This will make you a stronger speaker (and it's a great way to fight stage fright).

Triggers/Content:

I have no triggers to disclose. Be mindful of your opponent and others in the room.

A note on plagiarism:

If every single one of your points and sources is a direct copy of a Last Week Tonight or Patriot Act segment, I will notice.

personal info:

she/her

im a former debate student from bentonville high school and am currently attending stony brook university. i was involved in the speech and debate program for about five years.

speaking:

- use of debate jargon is fine, so is speed to an extent

- if you are being racist, homophobic, sexist, or in any way bigoted…don’t expect good speaker points or to win

debating:

- the substance of your debate matters so much more to me than how good of a speaker you are

- make sure your warrants are strong

- if you drop something on the flow and your opponent points this out AND points out why this is critical they will win on that point. however, i don’t mind if you kick out of an argument if it is no longer important or has been dropped by both sides

- framework / definition debate: boring, time suck, waste of time >:(

do what you want with this information

good luck bad boys B)

if you have any questions or just wanna talk you can email me (rebeccaell2s@gmail.com) im a nice human, i promise

< :) 3

Experience:

High School:

I competed in multiple types of debate during my four years in high school. Public Forum was my specialty, with multiple appearances in state finals and state championship in Public Forum speaking. Along the way, I picked up three qualifications to NSDA nationals and another to the TOC in Kentucky.

College:

Currently, I am getting my masters.

In undergraduate, I did college competition in IPDA debate. I have made multiple finals appearances as well as been nationally ranked in the top ten debaters in my division for the last three years of my collegiate competitive years.

I have also served as a parliamentarian for many high school tournaments while in college.

If you have any questions email me: tommyraegan015@gmail.com

General Debate Comments:

- Although an increased rate of speaking is the norm in the status quo, I don't want your breathing to become distracting and annoying with large intakes of air that are audible from space.

- T/Definition/Standard debate when done well and when needed will be rewarded.

- If a card becomes an issue I will call for it, please have cards ready if you foresee an issue in them.

- It is important that you are polite. Do not speak loudly to your partner while the opposing team is speaking. It it ok to pass notes, but you should not be audible to the judge or audience.

- Debate is about clash. This means that you HAVE to flow and you MUST not drop points. Organization that occurs through flowing will make sure that you clash with your opponent and do not drop key points.

- THE ONE THING THAT WILL KILL SPEAKER POINTS AND EARN AN L is if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic or disparaging to excluded groups. Please make sure your arguments do not fall into this category.

- I love theory and K debate, well done it will be rewarded. poorly done then :(

- Please do not call me judge :)

LD:

- You have to link your arguments to your V/VC (don't assume I know the link)

- Speed is fine as long as it doesn't exclude the other debater

- Ks need to be good and have the evidence to back it up to get my vote

- All General Debate Comments apply here as well. :)

PF:

- Anything that resembles a K/Plan will be voted down

- Flow is everything

- Any new arguments in the Final Focus will be thrown out and lower your speaks

- Do not assume I know the frame work link

- All General Debate Comments apply here :)

Congress:

- The expectations for congress are for it to not look like any of the other debate formats. This is supposed to model real rhetoric used in actual congressional sessions.

- While your speech should have three points: intro, body, and conclusion. It should NOT sound like a debate case.

- Do not rehash arguments in the round just to get a speech in

- You should be be not only advancing your positions arguments but engaging with the opposition to persuade the chambers to vote a certain way.

- A good PO is one who does the bare minimum in controlling chambers. A GREAT PO is one who is commanding, possesses great knowledge of parli pro, and is a charismatic speaker. POs can either make or break a chamber.

hiya im cora ferguson and i graduated from fayetteville high school in 2019.

she/hers, im an economics major at american university in Washington, dc

I did almost every style of debate during my three years on the team. Mostly congress my senior/junior year, LD and PF my novice year. I've competed in PF, LD, CX, and congress so I understand the structure of debate.

Judging wise- make my job easy, tell me why I should vote for you. I tend to vote for framework in LD/PF debate so make sure you explain this fully. Don't just talk about your own case and framework, don't leave arguments or definitions unanswered.

Know what you're talking about, don't pretend you do if you don't.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

just a little introduction to me, My names Karsten, I debated 3 years at Bentonville High School (2017-2020) in Arkansas and a few national tournaments. I debated mostly Public Forum for 3 years, but i did try policy, congress, world schools, and ipda, i also attended Emory debate camp for PF, do what you want with that information

A few important notes for all styles of debate-

To be honest i hate most debate jargon, but i understand its necessary, so do what you want with that information as well

I really enjoy creative and unique arguments, it makes the debate much more interesting and enjoyable

any sort of racist, homophobic, sexist or ableist arguments will automatically result in a loss for you, theres no room for any of that in debate.

Since i really only debated PF for a majority of my career i only have paradigms for that, sorry!

PF

Few things to prepare yourself for if I'm judging

I cannot stand definition debate, unless there is no clear definition of a word in the resolution, there is no need for you to define every-word in the resolution, you'll lose my attention very very quick. this goes for FW to the most part as well, prefer if you just stick with

I believe PF is a style of debate that literally anyone should be able to come and watch and fully understand, which means no theory, K's or spreading (i can understand but you will see big drop in speaker points, especially over the laptop)

the more unique the argument the more i'll listen but make sure to have solid and reliable links

I really enjoy debates that clash, go after your opponents case, don't spend time defending an argument that hasn't been attacked when you can use that time to prove to me why your opponents are wrong.

Creativity is Key, creativity is what makes debate fun, if you're creative with titles, wording, arguments, etc. You'll hold my attention which is key to winning the debate

for me the debate comes down to impact, who has the biggest impact, most immediate impact, how likely is the impact, etc.

Impact, impact, impact.

Speaker points

Everyone starts at a 28.5

like i mentioned spreading will make that go down

it will be practically impossible to get a 30

I don't think PF specifically needs to be the most formal debate in the world, show me your personality while talking

i don't mind being strong-headed and pushing your opponents buttons, or getting under their skin, but there is a limit, don't antagonize or be overly rude, i will dock speaker points

If you have any questions feel free to email me: Kgjeruldsen01@gmail.com!

I'm a former high school debater with three years of experience in both the state and national circuit. I spent most of my time doing Public Forum but have judged other styles as well. I don’t mind speed as long as I can understand you; if you see me put my pen down, that means I am not flowing and therefore not considering your argument. If it’s not on the flow, I will not vote on it. Don’t expect me to make assumptions about any sort of rhetoric; it is your job to convince me why it matters or ties into your case. I will vote you down if you are racist, sexist or homophobic. Have fun! Learn lots!

Public Forum

• I don’t mind aggressiveness in cross-examination if it helps you make a point. But always make sure to be assertive AND polite.

• Speak clearly, if I can’t understand you/hear you I can’t flow it.

• I don’t mind speed, but if it's borderline spreading I will tell you to slow down, this is not policy.

• Make sure to clearly tie your contentions to your framework if you have one.

• Framework is important but don't spend your entire speech only talking about it.

• Voters are key.

• PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure to use your warrants. If you cannot clearly articulate why what you’re saying is true/will happen I won’t be able to actually evaluate it.

I am super passionate about debate and I am extremely excited to be your judge. I hope this is a great learning experience for you guys!

dont be stupid

I'm a parent judge but with experience previously judging public forum. I like rounds that don't get too technical but I'm open minded and willing to vote on most arguments. Make sure your arguments aren't offensive and you explain them well. I like to have clear 'voting issues' in the final focus that make it easy for me to write my ballot.

top-level

qualifications (AKA bragging rights & career highlights): i am a computer engineer and sociology double major in college. i was also the scout of the year at the 75th NDT online. i have cleared at 10 college policy debate tournaments starting with triples at the northwestern season closer for that year on alliances, and on antitrust i was double 2's in getting to doubles at the 2022 Texas Open. next 2 years i made it doubles as the 17th seed at end-of-year championships, for both the 2024 ADA tournament at indiana and the 77th NDT in 2023 in virginia on the legal rights for AI topic, and at both of those previous two championships i beat Michigan State GM during round 4 in an upset. also coached a team to clear at NAUDL on the NATO AI topic while i double 2'd during the 77th NDT during the same weekend. nothing exceptional but im happy with the mild success attained during my career.

speaker points: the only reason my inflation for speaker points is probably high if you look back at my speaks is because i think speaker point inflation has been wild. i cant fight it and i dont want to be the reason someone doesnt make it to elims on speaks, so i mean i give out decent speaks compared to most people. however though, that being said the trade-off here is that i will be probably more critical in the RFD and im direct and straightforward and outspoken so you can argue with me in the decision i dont care it doesnt bother me ill just respond back nicely and still be correct, but i dont mind some back and forth, im a debater too i get it. ultimately the impact i want my RFD and decision to have on you is simple.

i dont get paid enough to change your personal opinions, but i do get paid to give you an RFD which ur gonna hear approximately two and a half hours to three hours after you read this when you see my name on the pairing. My RFD is based on who i think won the Debate based on community consensus across the board. it reflects what i think most judges in the pool would think, not my own hot takes. i believe the judge should adapt to the debaters and i am aware of community consensus on most things and takes in the topic and community about logics and arguments. dont judge me based on what others say. time yourself please, and do not go over time because i will be timing so do not try it.

read whatever u want. seriously. i promise you i can judge any debate. i am very familiar with patent law and copyrights as i am a computer engineering major who debated on antitrust and legal rights. if you do run critiques, i hate when people call it "the K". we're not german. that's really my only personal pet peeve.otherwise, not super nitpicky, i have a real life outside debate. i honestly couldnt care less about 99% of peoples hot takes sorry.

novice things for the neg:

1 - split the block, novices always forget the negative has two back to back speeches (2nc and 1nr) and they should have completely separate arguments from one another (but should still be somewhat compatible or at least not contradictory otherwise it's a performative contradiction) but they should be totally separate positions, i.e. 2nc takes the counterplan and case, 1nr takes a disadvantage and kicks out of any other argument.

2 - the 2nr must choose and narrow down - you want a DA, or a case turn, or you could do a DA with a counterplan, but do not just go for a ton of different random unrelated arguments. please narrow down in the 2nr. if you sound all over the place, you're probably going to lose.

3- 1nc and 1nr should not need prep time - you should have your 1nc ready before the round, and after you finish asking questions to the 2ac you should immediately start working on the 1nr. i recommend the 2nc takes half of the prep time you have, and the 2nr takes the other half. the 1nr should have at least fifteen minutes to prep this way, and it should be a really good speech because you can take one position and just solidly answer every single argument they put on that one position, which in novice debate usually translates to a very winnable 2nr.

novice things for the affirmative:

1 - answer every position and try to not drop any flow (as in, any position - you can surely drop parts of a position in novice debate and be fine usually), think about how much time you need to spend on each one in advance and break it down.

2 - don't drop your case in any speech, and put case as the first thing in every affirmative speech. please do not drop their case turns in your 2ac. have blocks that respond to each off case position and if you can do at least that, you're good

3 - the 1ar only needs a couple good arguments on each flow so just pick and choose and go fast. the 1ar only needs to extend your case impact for 5-10 seconds, and solvency for 5-10 seconds - if you don't do at least that, then i have to vote neg on presumption.

varsity - ABC's

conditionality: unbiased, more in the camp that it depends on the number not the practice, unless aff goes for condo bad outright. 2nr for condo good obviously doesn't need as much as the 2ar's full speech of condo bad, you just need to beat 1ar because 2ar can't make new arguments that weren't in the 1ar. that being said, 2ar still has hindsight and i'll still evaluate ur cross-apps. i dont understand how people still think dispo solves because being able to straight turn multiple neg positions and forcing them to go for them seems untenable and perms only take a couple of seconds to say on each flow so you still have to make most of the arguments otherwise so just set counter-interp to less than theirs or say its bad outright.

cap good/bad: i think the aff link turn to cap bad on this topic is pretty good, and if your planless aff says cap is bad, then i honestly dont think that is offense (in and of itself) against framework if the neg team is competent and can win TVA or SSD, so just go for other DA's to framework in that scenario. you can obviously implicate capitalism in how they construct their impacts or ideals under their model with more nuanced explanations, im just saying that they will win you can say cap bad under their model too, so you should account for that. if you want to go for cap good and you think it is strategic in round, and it links to their alt/aff then i will vote on it if you win the link and impact calc.

cp theory: unbiased usually i dont care either way but generally if you can articulate specific abuse story for the type of counterplan they have it's winnable for the aff for me still but at the end of the day just be real with me about what the impact to their thing is, or if their model and interp is just bad go for that, neg teams should feel good if they justify what they do

critique: the more u talk about the aff the more likely i will vote for u. dont drop their answers to your super important things, i get that you can drop stuff but it makes me sad when they have an on-point answer that you pretended to not hear. collapse down on the offense and close doors for me.

answering the critique: your strategic vision, which are often times very basic arguments, are key. use your aff and answer alts, your strategy usually either needs link defense and perm or just really good offense on framework and your aff's impacts not turned by them or captured through alt solvency by them.

framework against critical affs: i will vote for whoever is doing the better debating about debate i promise less on cheap shots more on impact level, fairness clash education skills are all equally good impacts i am unbiased in terms of each. predictability is your friend and limits should frame how you describe the iteration of your model over the course of a year and otherwise it is an internal link to the above four impacts. testing turns case because refinement, ballot cannot solve because Debate doesnt shape things, their model links back to their own offense because its not intrinsic to reading plans, and mitigating their turns to the process of Debating because they fall back on relying on them in some way are the four key components of negative strategy in my opinion. i think Defense is good, for four examples, the TVA or SSD lets you absorb their impacts with your model, and people can say they dont solve their case with generic presumption pushes or particular conceded cards specific to something they have said that their aff relies on. i know aff will shift but something you have said will probably stick if you are smart and can actually engage with what they are saying.

disadvantages - fav arg on topic highkey, yeah i like inflation and politics. 1ar must answer turns case, uniqueness frames the link for me but i can be convinced otherwise thats fine. in a lot of situations, uniqueness usually either is so powerful it overwhelms the link or it loses to thumpers, so exploit that. i think you should frame conceded internal links against the relative probability of aff solvency or your impact defense on their advantage if you have any, or if you are pairing it with a counterplan thenframe it as any risk of a link to net benefit combined with sufficiency framing.

states counterplan - own section because sometimes it can be OP if states can do deficit spending because sometimes that solves every aff solvency deficit against the counterplan so i would say that it is a great generic but a clever aff team can certainly push back against the parameters for solvency.

topicality - biased towards thinking aff can tax because of wording but go for whatever you want, im cool with it. i won in a debate, beating michigan state's top team to topicality for my 2nr at the ndt for an aff about artificial intelligence on the legal rights topic. my only real bragging right i really care about.

theory - apart from CP theory and conditionality, i often think reject the arg not the team is a decent response to lots of them and i also am willing to hear defenses of some out there things, i think textual competition alone is not too good but in tandem with functional maybe not too bad, lit base usually checks abuse probably

final notes on strategy

good strategy: there are many different ways to view Debate which are all "good". i believe there are a lot of different ways to understand what "good" strategy is. i'm honestly tired of having opinions on lots of strategic disagreements between different sectors of the Debate community and i molded my brain so much over the years that i really don't have any strong opinions about which strategies are good, in a sense of what wins Debates, comparing community consensus to my own takes. i don't know what the "it" factor always is to win, but it's pretty obvious within the Debate.

Tech first makes sense obviously, but truth first isn't just what someone arbitrarily dictates is the truth on a personal level - it's the framing and narrative of the Debate that isn't just about technical coverage. Most of the time though when it's a simple Debate, Truth = Tech, because they end up being usually the exact same when the winning team goes for dropped arguments that are executed well and become true even when we might not agree on what the capital T Truth is. i care about you having your own arguments you focus on and also answering their arguments they focus on. i flow well enough to know when something is dropped, but good cross-applications can save you. giving a speech with more persuasive and narrative value even if you drop a minor blip is better because well-executed strategy always maximizes your chances of victory.

Don't worry about adjusting your strategy in front of me, unless you double turn yourself, not just multiple contradicting worlds. Debaters are already under enough stress as is at a debate tournament. Just debate well. i can recognize good debaters regardless of what argument you read and how you present yourself, so actually just be yourself and i can give you tips on how to just unlock your true potential based on what you already do, not based on what i want you to do. just go for the argument that is both the most technically sound decision because of lack of technical coverage, AND the argument that is the most coherent in general against the affirmative you're going for and would be your A-strat against the best team that could be reading that aff.

Defense-Offense or Offense-Defense as better known is intuitive to me because of how i have been coached in college, i divide arguments into Defense and Offense intuitively but i don't discriminate if your strategy is more of one than the other. i've seen teams prioritizing the latter in Debates and give incredibly difficult speeches to fight back against effectively even though sometimes i think they don't collapse down and instead extended way too many different pieces of offense. i've seen teams give largely Defensive speeches that i thought were pretty good too, and they were persuasive because they were directly responsive to the other team's primary arguments and largely controlled the direction of the Debate enough to actually determine the condition for the win. Most people do a mix, which is generally good, but interestingly i think different styles are conducive to different ratios of Defense to offense, if that makes sense. But don't overthink it - you should just do what you're already prepared to do.

Background:

I debated for 3 years at Bentonville High School, two years in CX and one year in PF. I qualified to NSDA Nationals twice, once in World Schools, and one in PF. I also qualified to TOC in PF once. I am not a lay judge, and I would not like to be treated like one, I am a tab judge, so you best believe I will follow my flows. I currently attend BYU, where I do not do debate

Speaking:

I do not care how fast you go, just be clear and articulate. I see speed as a useful tool to be effective if used correctly. It is NOT to try and confuse your opponents by trying to make them miss some of your points. If you go fast, and I cannot understand you, that is your problem, not mine. Be organized in your speaking, go down the flow line by line, and make sure you are giving me CLEAR reasons why I should vote for you.

Framing and Theory:

I did CX for 2 years, so I love these type of arguments. Although they are not traditional in PF, I would love to see these type of arguments. Just do it well, or not at all. Tell me how I should view the round, where I should put my focus. Please, do not argue about the Rules of PF, it is annoying and honestly, I do not care.

Sportsmanship:

Debate is an activity that can get heated quickly. I DO NOT want to see yelling, and tensions getting out of control in the debate space. Be respectful to your opponents as well as your partner! If I see you being rude or unprofessional, that can reflect in your speaker points.

Judging:

tech > truth. I weigh everything in a debate round, but in your final speeches, tell me what you believe I should vote on. I will not do much work for you. If you do not extend an argument in your rebuttal speeches, the odds of me voting on it in the final focus are slim. Make sure by the end of the debate, I have clear voters.

If you have any questions for me, email me at lane.julia.33@gmail.com

Conflicts: Bentonville West High School

Experience:

I did debate for 3 years in high schools, primarily Congressional Debate, but I also did a little bit of Public Forum. Debate is supposed to be fun, so be courteous and kind to your fellow competitors. Show them the same respect you would want them to show you.

Speed:

I am not a huge fan of speed. It makes it harder for me to follow what you are saying. I would prefer a speaker who speaks slower, but has more substance and depth to their arguments over a speaker who just tries to get as much information out as they can.

Argumentation:

Please have a clear claim, warrant, and impact for your arguments. I want to know exactly what your argument is and why it matters. If that means telling me exactly what the claim and impact of the argument is, please do that. If I don't know what your argument is about or there is any confusion on my end about an argument, I won’t be able to accurately consider it in my decision.

Questioning:

Be respectful to your opponent(s). Please don't be rude to anyone in the debate space. It makes this activity less fun for others. There is a fine line between being overly aggressive and assertive. Stand your ground during questioning, but don't take over. Additionally, don't admit defeat during questioning. If you can find a response to a question, do that.

Congressional Debate:

In Congressional Debate, I like to hear some form of a rebuttal immediately following the authorship for a piece of legislation. Do not re-hash arguments or just repeat the same thing 5 times. It will make the debate stale. Additionally, I will take into account how well you respond to questioning; if you are unable to stand up to questions and you allow your arguments to fall, you will be marked down. Furthermore, I really appreciate sign posting; TELL ME WHAT YOUR MAIN POINTS ARE. Evidence must be recent or at least relevant to your argument, meaning that if you choose to use a foundational document (constitution, bill of rights, federalist papers, etc.) you must be able to accurately explain how it relates to the legislation and your arguments.

Presiding Officers

In regards to the presiding officer, I will be especially vigilant about how well you are able to maintain control of the chamber as well as the way you interact with individual competitors and other judges. If you are presiding, it is imperative that you know Robert's Rules of Order as well as Parliamentary Procedure. Failure to show that you have a good understanding of these two things will be frowned upon. If you are unsure about something during a round, PLEASE ask for help. I would much rather you ask for help than do things that would jeopardize your standing in the round.

Important!!

I will not tolerate any form of discriminatory comments or offensive remarks. If you do either of those things, you will lose the round and I will be speaking to someone in a position of authority in the tournament.

If you have any other or more specific questions about my preferences, feel free to email me at moyesn34@gmail.com however be mindful that I am a college student, so my responses may not be the fastest. Have fun debating and Roll Tide.

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. A note on Spreading: I am not a fan. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge. Spreading harms or eliminates all of these. Don't. I will never vote down a debater for Spreading alone but you already have one huge strike against you out of the gate if you do.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Full Disclosure: I am not a National Circuit judge. If its a new concept that they do it there, not a fan. Proud Traditionalist Debater and Coach here. Don't try to run Progressive theory before the resolution or run Disclosure Theory, won't hold water with me.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

My Preferences:

• I love to see passion and that you truly believe in what you’re saying, but be respectful with your words and body language.

• While I understand your time constraints and the vast amount of information you have to communicate, if I cannot understand you because of speed, that will hurt you more in the long run.

• While organization and clear signposts are not the most important thing to me, it does help me understand how you are supporting your side. That being said, the content of your words is the most important thing to me.

• I do not disclose winners during the round. When I submit your scores, I will also provide feedback from my notes for you to consider.

Just a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. Make sure you take advantage of crossfire. Although I am not going to vote from your crossfire, this is a time where I want to see clash of arguments and engage with warrants. You should not be repeating what you just read in case but rather tell me how your argument works and finding/pointing out flaws from your opponent's arguments.

2. If your opponents are asking for a piece of evidence make sure you are able to provide it within a reasonable amount of time or I will run your prep time. You should be prepared.

3. If you are using framework in case, make sure it is warranted/carded. Also do not read framework and then drop it after the constructive and never bring it up again in round. There should be a clear purpose when using framework.

4. Please weigh! This is important for nearly every speech but especially the final focus as close rounds tend to be decided in the very last speech of the debate! Tell me why I should prefer your argument over your opponent's! Impact analysis please! I know in the final focus you might want to go for nearly every argument in the end but you only have 2 minutes. Make sure you pick and choose the most important arguments in the round and tell me why I should vote for you!

5. For my second speakers: I know you might want to read tons of different arguments and "flood" the flow but it is not necessary. It is better to read 3 or 4 solid well warranted responses per argument rather than 6 or more blippy responses that are not developed at all. Also remember to use up your entire time! Take advantage of it! If you have time to defend in your rebuttal speech, address important turns on your case but only if you think you have completely attacked your opponent's case.

These are just a couple of things to keep in mind. I am pretty laid back so if you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. Don't hesitate to ask! Good luck!

experience: cx, pf, ld, bq, congress, world schools

cx

include me on the email chain. it's pretty rare that i will vote on t, that would be a very special circumstance. tell my how many off case positions you're running please. i'm fine with any type of argument as long as you articulate it well. i feel like there isn't really anything unique to put here, if you have specific question you can feel free to ask me. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

public forum

i'm fine with any kind of argument. my decision is more often than not based off the line by line debate. be sure to have real impacts that you carry across the flow and weigh against your opponents. if there is a weighing mech make sure it's actually one worth while and that you continue relating back to it and explaining how you win under it. take full advantage of cross- don't just start rambling off an argument during that time, ask questions and move on, alsoif you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech. arguments need to have warrants and links. i'm fine with speed, but not if you're sacrificing clarity- also speed doesn't equate to spreading.

lincoln douglas

speed is okay, but not at the cost of clarity. no need to spread but if you absolutely must then you should warn me/ your opponent and probably send out the doc. please do not turn the whole round into a framework debate. if you want to debate frameworks the whole time, don't allow it to dominate your speech time. be sure to actually be relating your arguments/ impacts back to the framework you've chosen to run. i am big on line by line, that's what makes the decision. i am fine with any type of arguments, as long as you have a link/ warrant to the case you're making. if you want what happens in cross to matter you need to bring it up during your speech.

any homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc will result in an L. respect your opponents.

-Roadmap before you begin and signpost as you go through your speech. If you don't tell me where it goes, I'll put it off to the side until you do.

-If you are speaking too fast for me to flow, I will put my writing utensil down. If it goes down, that is your sign to slow down.

-Be civil, especially during cross examination time. It stinks to lose because you were equally matched, but one team was too snippy.

*No ad hominem attacks, purposeful misgendering, racist language, etc.

-Use your weighing mechanism or framework throughout the debate, not only at the beginning and only at the end.

*On that note, it is not in your best interest to waste time arguing framework or weighing mechanism unless the framework first provided is unfair. If you ask me to judge using both frameworks/weighing mechanisms, I will, but make sure you tell me how your case fits both.

Background: high school policy debater, small town Arkansas 2004-2008, parli and LD in college at Arkansas State University.

I've been judging since 2010.

My paradigm is simple and straightforward.

I prefer not to be included in your email chain. If you find it imperative to point out inconsistencies with evidence, etc, do so during your speech. I don't feel it is my prerogative to check the merits of your evidence.

I value politeness, and despise those who are snarky. Even if you and I both know you're easily winning the round, there's absolutely no reason for you to behave in a manner that is disrespectful to your opponent.

I listen to any argument presented to me. If you present something wacky, be prepared to defend it. You should know your argument inside and out. Debate on the case is a must. I will not vote NEG with no clash on the case. I will not vote AFF if AFF drops their case only to refute NEG arguments.

I consider myself a pretty expert flow-er. Speed is fine, slow down on your contentions/tags if you want me to flow them to the letter. I do not flow CX, but I listen carefully. If you set up an argument during CX, follow up on that in your speech so that it is on my flow.

The round comes down to clash and impact calculus. Line by line argumentation is paramount. Topicality is a voting issue for me.

Affiliation and Big Picture:

I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.

I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.

Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.

Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.

I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.

K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.

DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.

Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.

Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.

Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is gswall97@gmail.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

Former k policy and congressional debater from Little Rock Central High School. I attend the University of Arkansas- Fayetteville and do not actively debate.

email me for questions: abbywalton28@gmail.com

Note: please don't call me ma'am- I won't call you out if you do, but I prefer not being called that. I use they/she pronouns & prefer they.

Spreading is OK for me.

In high school, I was the kind of debater that constantly had Framework debates and hated the subject. Now, especially judging formats like Big Questions and LD, I appreciate Framework a lot more and give that argument priority. Please tell me how to vote and what to vote for!

I also never read a capitalism or hegemony good argument, although I will vote for it if it's the more substantiated and better debated claim.

To get good speaker points, have a well structured speech, speak clearly, and use lots of good well thought out evidence. I think a well organized speech is what I look for and appreciate the most.

Hi! Hello! I am Turner Ward!

I am a full-time theatre student and participated in Forensics and Debate for five years in high school and now do judging after graduating.

Word of advice. BREATH.

Hello lil baby debaters !!!!

heres the gist of it... I did policy debate at Bentonville High School for 3yrs..

I will easily be able to follow your arguments and your speed... but if your spreading is UNCLEAR then it won't make it onto my flow.

-- ORGANIZATION IS KEY!!!! If you don't sign post I won't know where arguments go. I'm a flow judge and if I don't know where your argument goes then it will probably hinder how I evaluate the round at the end

-- if you want outstanding speaker points you have to work for it... just because you can spread isn't enough for me, you have to be able to show me that you can speak PERSUASIVELY!! Slow down, emphasize words, repetition, hand gestures, analogies, eye contact. I should be completely moved to tears/ action by your speech.

-- NEVER END A SPEECH BEFORE THE TIMER GOES OFF. you should always have something to say

-- don't ask if you can sit during your speech the answer is no-- **THIS WAS PRECOVID U CAN SIT**

______________________

-- I will flow any argument but you better KNOW it and be able to explain it well. If you are going to read something that you just found a few hrs before... be careful

-- if it comes down to a specific card I will comb through it so this is a WARNING to make sure your card says EXACTLY what you are arguing .... I would rather you have incredibly strong analytics than mediocre evidence

-- if you have strong evidence/ can argue something crazy really well, then go for it. my outside biases/ opinions do not affect my view. You have good evidence that says Atlantis the lost city has been found then it's a valid argument that must be adequately addressed by your opponent. Argue that your team is actually pirates idc

____________________

-- rebuttals need impact calc.

-- I like rebuttals to consist of analysis of the round, less cards & more explaining WHY your team is winning

-- TOPICALITY IS A PRIORI (I don't care what the new fad is, but to me that is one of the most important things in the round) --> that also means, don't run dumb ones and make sure your technique is correct

_______________________

-- NEG try not to bring up new arguments in the 2nc... it annoys me when rebuttals turn into the aff whining/ a debate over the rules of policy. If you DO bring up a new argument it better be the strongest thing you have, don't just waste time.

-- NEG I want to see a good use of the negblock... don't say the exact same thing for 13 mins

-- I WANT CLASH. Case debate is so often swept under the rug !!!! even if you don't have specific cards against their case I will flow analytics. Strong analytics !!!!!!! This holds true for all forms of debate.

________________________

-- don't be rude to your opponents during cross ex

-- don't run sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. arguments. If I think that the round has become offensive I will stop you and force you to take YOUR prep time to re evaluate. Don't be insensitive.

-- if you flash files I will not count it as prep

-- have a phone or timer for your speech... I will not be your judge AND timekeeper.

-- open cross ex is fine in my book BUT if your partner is answering all the questions for you I will take that to mean that you don't understand what you just read

-- do NOT start off cross ex with 'how are you' or lame filler questions. Just end cross ex or ask for more details... but don't waste my time. CROSS EX SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL.

______________________

-- K affs are fun, go for it !!!

-- do not forget to extend your case in every speech.

--AFF if you are going to have framework in your plan I better hear it until the very end. Don't say read it in the 1ac and then not mention it again until rebuttals.. I will consider it dropped

______________________

FOR PF and LD...

-- I've judged enough rounds that I understand and can follow the arguments you make

-- I'm okay with K's being run in an LD round but no CPs; progressive or traditional whatever your preference is go for it

-- I know that PF and LD are supposed to focus more heavily on slow, well spoken, persuasive speeches, that being said, I am okay with speed but DO NOT SPREAD.

-- look you don't get a lot of time in these speeches, I get that, but I also need to see that you are adequately responding to every argument on the flow !!! (This is part of being organized)

-- impact calc is still relevant, I wanna hear some hella persuasive speaking in those summary speeches

-- also you CAN debate the weighing criteron... I expect you to extend. Don't just define your criteron, you better put it into the context of the resolution.

-- no 'open cx' in pf, don't ask. You have grand crossfire/ you should know your case well enough to answer questions on your own.

_______________________

Big Questions

-- have fun... good luck... I better hear some enticing, impressive, creative, and logical arguments !!!! Claaaaaassssshhhhhh! Do your research.

- don't just repeat your case over and over...

________________________

Congress

- i don’t remember reading or even thinking about paradigms the few times I participated in Congress back in the old day BUT in case you are reading this… most of what i said for PF/LD apply to you. I would say be more cautious with speed because other judges aren’t gonna like that even though i don’t mind as long as you can talk fast and still be persuasive and include tone fluctuation

- when disagreeing (or agreeing) with an argument if u mention someone refer to them as a fellow delegate.

——————————————————-

-- if you decide to flash or have some sort of email chain during round I want to be included. whitemadisonj@gmail.com

-- I try not to disclose in round because I want you guys motivated and encouraged for your next round so PLEASE don't ask me who won

-- I expect you to come to the round having already read my paradigm... you may ask me questions about what I have said or anything I didn't specify but I will not repeat all of what I have typed

-- be unique and creative !!! Have fun with this !!!!! Can't wait to see how hard you have all worked !!