Now in college, debated in high school all four years, mostly in PF, earned a TOC bid one upon a time

PF:

-I can follow progressive rounds, but be careful running a K in PF. As long as your opponents actually understand you, I'm cool. If they don't understand you, it's simply not constructive to the educational value of the activity.

-Second rebuttal has to engage with first rebuttal in some way; second summary is far too late to address first rebuttal. I was a second speaker in high school, I know it's hard, but it really isn't optional.

-Summaries have to collapse to be effective. I found this concept hard to grasp as a debater, but the more I judge the more painfully clear this becomes.

-It's good for you if there is a framework against which I can evaluate the round that has been proposed by you.

-When judging PF I default to viewing the round as a straightforward comparison between the Con and Pro worlds. Though you can win without doing so, I welcome discussions on theory, burdens, etc.; I think they can be really helpful in PF to clarify what those worlds would look like, which is a prerequisite to weighing them well. That being said, stock issues are far, far more important, so spend your time accordingly.

-Cross is not flowed, so make arguments in speeches, not cross.

Above all, please have fun and keep things light. If you have any questions pre-round, please do not hesitate to ask! My email is firstlast at outlook if you are starting a chain.

Debated pf for two years and did ld for two years

add me to the email chain: rishi.ajmera11@gmail.com

PF:

go whatever speed u want, I'm fine with it if you spread just send a doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline everything or the other team gains offense that can't be touched on in second summary.

I will call for cards at the end of a round if they matter for my decision.

Don't post-round, if you do I will dock your speaks significantly.

if you have any questions, ask me before round

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

Hi, I'm Ameemah. I've debated PF for 2 years. I've been debating for 5 years under the NYCUDL. You can contact me via email or text. My email is khan.ameemah@gmail.com and my number is 3479096370.

General notes

- Clear signpost

- First summary and second rebuttal must frontline

- Collapsing is recommended, especially for summary

- Weigh your turns

- No new offense in summary

- No new evidence in final focus

- No theoretical/alternate plans to the resolution should be brought up

- You can time yourself but I'll be keeping the official time

- I don't flow crossfire so if you want to enforce a point, mention it in summary or final focus

- I won't be keeping track of card names so if it is brought up again, briefly explain the card.

- I don't have a preferred speaking pace

- All arguments made must have proper warrants and links

- All speakers must weigh

- Clash is important

Good luck!

Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a sophomore at Cornell University. I did Parli for a year and Public Forum for three years back in high school. Now, I've been doing college policy for two years :) I typically run trad policy stuff, but I'm used to hearing K's and T - so you can probably get away with running most things. Contact me for email chains at:

jzhou0303@gmail.com

--

For LD: I'm pretty new to coaching LD, but I do have my policy experience to supplement my understanding.

Good with evaluating traditional arguments all around, and I can definitely handle spreading. However, for online tournaments, I'd suggest speaking at a slightly slower speed so I can hear you and your mic doesn't cut out. My wifi is kinda spotty, so I may ask for speech docs. I understand what a value/value criterion are, but I've never actually competed with them; I'm still in the process of learning about them.

I'm fine with evaluating some of the wackier progressive arguments, like high theory or tricky T stuff, but keep in mind that I might not know what you're talking about!! I know the more basic stuff like Foucault's biopower and Baudrillard's simulation theory, but I will not know what you're saying if you start talking about Deleuze. There is a limit to these sorts of things!!!

--

For PF: I think paraphrasing cards are alright, but I will call for cards if necessary (or if you ask me to).

I'll understand spreading, but it's somewhat unadvisable because your mic might cut out. Please signpost in your speeches or else I won't be able to flow!!

No impacts, no dub >:) Trigger warnings are great! Please read them when you find them necessary. Please go hard and roast each other in cross (I won't flow it though lol).

--

I'll evaluate theory in PF, I'm alright with RVI's, and you should feel free to run trix (but keep in mind that I might get lost).

about

• hi, i'm ellen (ellen.liu007@gmail.com) !! she/her, captain @ potomac oak + poolesville'25
• i've been debating on the nat. circuit for ~4 years (qualled to toc, ranked 5th in the nation, & reached outrounds at upenn, harvard, stanford, etc.)
• turn your cams on.. that should be done without saying

prefs

• read/do whatever (as long as its not - ist)
• tech > truth
• please collapse
• signpost signpost signpost
• weigh (comparatively)!!
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline
• be interactive PLEASE.

prog

• i'm more familiar w theory compared to ks
• would prefer neither

speaks

• +1 speak if we finish the round early (please do not take forever to find your cards, preflowing, etc. -- you should be doing that before the round starts)
• +1 speak if you follow me on spotify

feel free to ask any questions !!

I am a public forum debater at Brooklyn tech. I will flow everything, including important points made during crossfires. Speak well, loud, and clearly for speaker points. I don’t mind spreading and because it’s your speech you can do whatever you want. Weighing impacts throughout the round, tangible evidence, and link chains are the biggest factors in a debate so clearly emphasize them. Ultimately whichever side has stronger evidence, impacts, and extended points will win. Note to not drop any points or else they won’t be counted on my flow.

He/Him

email: prateek.motagi@stern.nyu.edu

lots of circuit experience (gtoc and more)

ask me anything before round!

tldr: run whatever, explain it, win!

disclosure is good (I mean for my decision, ofc)

• Tech>Truth. I'll vote off ANYTHING extended cleanly on the flow. I was forced by my partner to love impact turns (do what you will with that). More on progressive stuff below.

• Pleeeease read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (saves u from theory)

• for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in speech. for example, if I'm running solving domestic violence in my case, which some people could be uncomfortable debating about since that's an issue personal to them, I would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)

• Tell me if you're in the bubble and I'll give you 30s

• If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I'm fine with a nice, chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority!

Speeches

• Paraphrasing is chill, just don't lie about evidence. HOWEVER, I’m open to cut-card theory–I won’t intervene with my personal ideologies.

• I'm fine with any speed, I don’t want to limit you as the judge. However, notify me before your speech so I know what to expect! I'll let you know if I need a doc or not.

• Enunciate even if you're spreading, don't try to slur words to get more stuff out pls.

Rebuttal

• You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

• Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.

Summary/FF

• Must extend your link, impact, and clear warrant!!! (idc about author names I don't flow them)

Framework

• Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times, teams will just read a blip at the top of case saying “The fw for this debate should be how x will help in the future”

• I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)

Progressive

• ngl idk much about prog

• I was not a theory debater

judge simp bad!

Hi everyone! Hope everyone is doing well! :)

He/Him/His

I am a freshman in college and competed mainly in PF in high school for all four years, but I have experience in some speech events and world schools debate. I started judging as a junior in high school, and I have pretty decent experience judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas. In terms of judging, I would consider myself a bit technical although I have specific preferences for events or tourneys which will be updated at the bottom if I do have time/tourney specific request.

General Judging preferences

Please try to signpost or give me a roadmap as you go, I want to spend as much time evaluating your arguments as possible instead of trying to understand what section your discussing

I can understand speed, but I would prefer not to listen to spreading, if you do spread I will listen but I will need a copy sent so I can understand it properly.

Try to be nice to each other, debate rounds can get intense or passionate, but there is no place for personal insults, talking over each other, and being hostile to each other in debate.

Please keep your own time and prep time, although I will keep a timer as a backup option.

In terms of topic specific jargon, I am not currently coaching or very active in the circuit so I generally am out of the loop in terms of specific information on topics, I am a political science major so I have an OK knowledge base but assume I won't know to much about some of the topic.

If anyone has questions that were not addressed in the round or RFD, you can reach me at email at resniknico@gmail.com or through social media, I am active on most major platforms except twitter, if you look up my name I should pop up somewhere.

ANY ARGUMENT OR STATEMENT THAT IS RASCIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR HOSTILE TO ANY GROUP IN A HATEFUL WAY WILL RESULT IN AN IMMIDIATE LOST FOR THE GUILTY PARTY AND ME TAKING A TRIP TO TABROOM AND COACHES

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

Hi, I'm Fredy. I did LD debate for four years on the TFA circuit and a little bit on the national circuit at Clements High School, graduating in 2023. Currently a college student.

email: fredvima022@gmail.com

speech drop> email chain, but I know speech drop doesn't work on everyone's computer

I'm a pretty flexible judge, but here's my overall ranking (1 being favorite)

1- Larp, Phil

2- T/ theory, K

3- complex pomo Ks

4- trad

5- dumb theory/ tricks/ cheaty strategies in general (I'll evaluate them because I'm a tech > truth judge, but I will tank your speaks)

6- high theory (I don't hate it; I have a tough time understanding these since debaters often severely underexplain them)

Despite this ranking, I'd rather see a good K debate than a bad Phil debate, so keep that in mind. I do like well-warranted and well-written Ks. I read set col, cap, and security from time to time and even a little bit of Lacan, but here's what I'll say: If you can't explain what micro fascism is, don't run Deleuze, if you can't explain what a securitized impact is don't run a security K. That being said, don't be afraid to try a new strategy.

I will not evaluate theory or Ks about what anyone is wearing or the objects they have on them. Everything else is fair game.

CX is binding

Don't be sketchy about shells. If there is legit pre round or in round abuse read the shell by all means. If your opponent asks you pre round if there are any interps you want them to meet and you don't tell them I do not want to see a shell about out of round abuse.

Clipping is an auto L 20

Speaker points:

I am not the biggest fan of the speaker point system, but I think it's an excellent way to reward smart strategies and good rounds. I'll start at a 29 and decrease it if your strategy isn't the best or you don't explain something adequately. I'll increase speaks if you use a smart strategy or make me laugh.

I won't dock or increase speaks for how you speak; just make sure it's comprehensible. Go at around 70-80% of your normal speed if we are online. I'll yell clear twice per speech then if you choose to ignore me I will stop flowing.

Lastly, good luck, remember to have fun and please ask if you have questions. End of the day, its not too serious who wins or loses and y'all are ultimately here because you enjoy debate.

Email me at w6daisy@gmail.com for email chains or any questions.

General:

Speed is ok with me as long as you speak clearly. I prefer it if you don't spread because I might not flow everything. If you do decide to spread, please send a speech doc. If you want me to flow something important, say something along the lines of "this is critical because..."

I probably won't call for cards unless something seems kinda sus.

I'll give you a couple of secs to finish your sentence when timer goes off, but im not flowing the rest.

Please keep your own time.

Please warrant your arguments well. If I come to a point where I have to choose between args I will choose the more warranted one. tech > truth

Signpost please :)

Just don't be rude/discriminatory. Disclaimer: if you misgender or act discriminatory your opponents, expect a drop. If any debater feels unsafe please feel free to dm and I'll end the round.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech specific:

Don't just throw out random buzzwords. Interact with your opponent's responses.

Same goes for evidence, don't just tell me the author and year, tell me what the evidence says.

Turns should be implicated and impacted out.

I don't flow cross and I won't be paying that much attention to cross unless its something important. Though with that in mind please don't waste cross time neither. If something important happened in cross bring it up in speech. Concessions are binding.

Defense isn't sticky.

Second Rebuttal must frontline.

Summary and Final Focuses MUST MATCH!

I don't wanna see new args in 2nd summary and final focuses. I find it a little bit abusive and I will not flow it and consider it in my decision. However if the other team doesn't point it out then I will be forced to consider it.

Final Focus, tell me clearly what you win on.

Weighing: Love meta weighing. Please make weighing comparative. If it's not comparative, I'll be forced to do my own analysis and you might not like the way that I do it. I like weighing to start in rebuttal :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressive Args:

Theory:

Theory is fine but if you do spread it a speech doc would be great.

On paraphrasing vs direct quotes//cut cards I do think that you should use direct quotes but I don't have a large problem with paraphrasing unless if you paraphrase complete articles and misconstrue evidence. But with that being said I won't go rogue if its not properly responded to.

Ks:

I don't really understand baudrillard, cap, security, or imperialism ks. I did understand the preff aff ran in TOC finals 2021.

Just in general don't use prog unless you feel the absolute need to because you find something abusive. Running prog for easy dubs is NOT OKAY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have fun while you're debating, learn a bunch (debate is a educational sport), and do your best.

- if you solve a Rubik's cube while giving a speech…. auto 30 speaks

- you must prove that you have a mixed cube before speech and a solved cube after speech.

Introduction

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

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

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

Congressional Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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