Lion Debate Invitational
2020 — Online, NY/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Last updated: 17 August 2020
FYO with 1 year of CX and 3 years of PF experience on the WA local circuit - no exposure anywhere else. Primarily judging PF, although I have prior exposure to LD and CX and sometimes end up covering those rounds.
- I flow, so make sure you make sense on the flow. That being said, I will NOT keep track of your cards' tag names meticulously. If you're bringing up a card in later speeches, you better explain that card again within the context of your argument. "Johnson 19" doesn't mean anything. (n/a for LD, CX)
- Pretty relaxed about delivery, in PF any speed you go at will be fine, though I prefer it stylistically if you're not panting between your sentences. If you spread through summary/FF I will be a little sad though and might miss a response.
- Aside from flowing to keep track of what's said, I enjoy traditional PF. Treat me like a lay judge, make sure you use your speeches for their intended purposes and have fun!
- Respect everyone in the room, goes without saying.
- One last pet peeve: I know to start to time you when you start speaking. "My time... starts... NOW" isn't an acceptable way to begin a reasoned argument in any other context, so it shouldn't be one in Public Forum. Neither is an "off-time road-map"; this is Public Forum, and your speeches shouldn't be structured in such a way that requires a road-map.
Speed is cool, just don't go too fast. I can't flow extreme spreading and will stop flowing.
Second rebuttal must frontline/attack everything or the other team gains offense that can't be touched on in second summary. Don't bring up like a new turn in the second summary unless frontlining the prior summary. I will call for cards at the end of a round if they matter for my decision.
I think frameworks are really good and will bump your speaks if it is a good and warranted framing.
Ig I'll buy any framing if is explained
If the opponents don't give a framework, you have till second rebuttal to give one.
If the opponents give framing in speech that has no warranting as to why it should be prioritized, I will have to buy the framework if you don't provide why to prioritize your framework.
Don't post-round, if you do I will dock your speaks significantly.
CONTENT WARNING should be read at the top of constructive case. If not, then content warning theory can be run.
go ritviks mahendra paradigm I agree with it
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 firstname.lastname@example.org and my number is 3479096370.
- 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
Hi! My name is Jenna, and I'm a rising high school senior. I've done Parli for a year, and this is my third year doing Public Forum :) Contact me for email chains at:
I think paraphrasing cards is 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, but prog args aren't really a personal strong point
I'm alright with RVI's
Feel free to run trix, but keep in mind that I might get lost
Auto 30 speaks if you run a meme case ;)
Run the Robert Chen FW and it's an instant win
hmm okay so...
i'm Ellen (she/her). I uniquely do PF; I'm not experienced in anything else, you could call me a pretty generic flow judge.
You can contact me @ email@example.com
check out the speaker chart here
speed is fine
comparative weighing is good, well warranted args are great
don't run a cost-benefit framework that's dumb
don't call me judge that's kinda weird lmao
tech > truth. tell me death is good, +0.5 speaks
don't be rude, that's really lame
i don't flow cross, if something important happens bring it up later
do not extend through ink
i enjoy traditional rounds more than progressive- don't give me a hard time
back-half extensions need to be complete
you must collapse or it's really hard for me to vote for you
I won't call for evidence unless it's indicted to
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline offense or else its considered dropped
first summary needs to extend defense if frontlined
i will let you go overtime by 5 seconds, if you go over that I will stop flowing.
weigh your turns
clash is fun
"Debate is a deathmatch. Fight to the death. If I don't smell blood I will personally make sure I do."
Postrounding: Let's get this clear. Questions about round allowed, postrounding is not. If you ask me "are you aware that we..." after the round I will promptly leave the call, no questions asked. I understand that judges make mistakes, and I allow and in fact encourage questions and clarifications, but if you're going to try and change my decision, tough luck my friend.
you need consent before running progressive args
theory: I get this, i think
ks: absolutely not. I don't understand ks, so be ready to explain everything really really well.
with that in mind, if you run ks I may not evaluate it correctly
paradigm was slightly copied off of brian this kid- here
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.
Bio: Chelmsford ‘23, He/Him
very small schooler, but lots of circuit experience (gtoc and the other (inter?)nats)
ask me anything before round!
imagine writing long paradigms. here’s all you need to know: run it, 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.
No ___ism or purposeful misgendering. L20. I don't care if they dropped all your turns.
Read content warnings for potentially triggering args or u lose speaks (maybe even the round)
for novices- a content warning is when you read a warning for potentially harmful stuff in case. 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, you would say 'content warning: domestic violence' before constructive to notify them :)
If you give me food I will be happy and give everyone in the round a bump in speaks!
Tell me if you're in the bubble and i'll give you 29.5s (unless you deserve a 30), but y’all better win the tournament after I help you with this!!
Ask me questions after round if you want
- If you're stealing prep, whatev I can't do anything about it, but if you're making it obvious and I can tell, I'm capping your speaks at 26.
- If there is a lay or a flay on the panel, kick me. I did WSD at NSDAs (got walked over in dubs :( ) so I'm fine with a nice chill debate, and you should adapt to the majority.
- The amount of times my partner has been in dumb in round (a lot) is the amount of times I'd allow paraphrasing. okay, that wasn't funny but I don't care if you paraphrase 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 even try to slur words to get more stuff out.
If you read blips in rebuttal and then try to 'clarify it' in summary, I'm counting it as a new response. Your responses in rebuttal need to make sense fam.
You must frontline in 2nd rebuttal when I judge you (no, its not unfair because 1st summary still has to frontline your responses in less time too). Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal messes up the round tbh.
Independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal are sus, but responsive/overviews are fine.
I do not care if you don't weigh or extend in rebuttal, not sure why people extend in rebuttal but it happens!
Must extend your link impact and clear warrant!!!
Sticky D (not extending defense in summary if it was dropped by second rebuttal, but bringing it up in FF) is okay but let me know.
I default to timeframe weighing (interesting right) ... actually I might forget so oops if I do scope. You can solve back by weighing yourself though!
Any new stuff in 2nd FF is super toxic and I'm docking your speaks for it (I feel for you first FF teams)
Framework's cool! Please warrant it. Too many times teams in my state 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” (ok? why?)
I GUESS I'll buy any framing. If it makes my head hurt then I will cry and not vote off of it (this is maybe the most I’d intervene?)
- Make sure you’re having fun
I average 28s
I might boost if you do some rap allusion or something, but I'm not making a list of +1 points for you haha
If you run a hypertech arg and you win 'goodly' I’ll give you 30s, if you win 'okayly' I’ll give you 27s, if you look silly because you took a policy backfile and are clueless as to what the argument actually means, l’ll give you 20s!
NEVER read anything progressive on novice debaters. If it’s so bad it would probably be something I would drop them for. At most, just point out in the speech they did _____ and leave it at that.
Ks? meh (i will probably vote in the wrong sense, and u should explain well). Trix? L15. Theory? Sure. Friv theory? L25.
- I'll admit I wasn't a theory debater, so I'm not advanced in RVIs and that stuff but I'm not gonna limit you
All parts of the shell (that u go for) must be extended in summary
judge simp bad! being nice to me is cool but don’t say thank you 5 times after the round
Hi everyone! Hope everyone is doing well! :)
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
I debate public forum for Fiorello H. Laguardia.
Have content warnings for sensitive topics.
I am a flay judge.
Don't misconstrue evidence.
If you're looking for evidence, I'll give you 5 minutes or else it's dropped.
Second rebuttal must frontline.
It may be strategic for you to collapse in second rebuttal, but you must collapse in summary!
Weigh- the earlier you start in the round, the better.
Weighing should have a warrant/be comparative- don't just use buzzwords.
I don't flow crossfire. If something important comes up, then mention it in a speech.
Keep track of your own prep time.
No sticky defense.
Theory is okay- but I may only vote off it if it's explained and implicated well enough.
I can evaluate Ks as long as you explain it well.
I won't look at evidence unless it is a major part of making a decision or if someone tells me to call for it.
If an argument has no warrant, I won't evaluate it.
I have debated PF for 3 years.
Tech>Truth, but at a certain point the sketchier the argument the lower the threshold for response.
I will count extensions with a baseline that feels appropriate in the round.
I will not flow crossfire but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, although I mainly think crossfires are to benefit the debaters, not the judge.
Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructive), the threshold for response will be quite low.
I am fine with talking fast but don't spread.
I would prefer to not disclose cases but that's fine if people are doing it.
I am cool with 4-minute prep for online tournaments. I would allow flex-prep if it's made clear to your opponents.
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 will probably lose. I will also not look at any cards other judges call.
Preferably use an author name and date but if you cite it in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine.
I am fine with whatever format of cross-fire as long as there is equal speaking time.
If there is no response in rebuttal, offense is conceded.
2nd rebuttal has to frontline or defense is conceded.
1st summary has to frontline or defense is conceded.
No new offense in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final.
Arguments and responses that are not in summary do not count in the final.
A framework should be extended in every speech.
Ideally, you give me two ways to vote the round for you in summary and final.
I will first evaluate any offense the first speaking team extended, then any the second speaking team extended, then I will look at the framework and weighing.
I likely will default to the neg if there is no offense left at the end of the round (depends on the resolution).
I will adopt any speaker points policy for a tournament to make it fair, but if there is none:
25-27.4 is below average.
27.5 is the average PF debater (being able to give properly formatted PF speeches).
27.6-30 is above average.
Actual weighing (not just saying "we outweigh on scope") is guaranteed to boost speaks, comparative weighing is even better.
Good luck, have fun.
Hey, my name is Fredy I go to Clements in Texas.
Hate: Don't be racist, respect people's pronouns, etc. I won't vote you down on it unless your opponent runs theory (which i will be very lenient towards them in evaluating), but you will get 20 speaks. If you are literally advocating for genocide or explicitly saying racism, sexism, or homophobia is good I will stop the round and try to get you kicked from the tournament :). At the same time: if you think your opponents are being hateful feel free to call them out or dm me and i'll let them know. Don't be scared to run theory on it.
Basically do whatever you want. If you're choosing to take the risk of not disclosing, fine, but I want to have the full doc. I generally believe disclosure is a good practice, so i will be quite lenient in evaluating disclosure theory, especially if one side disclosed and the other didn't.
I'm a LARPer in LD so progressive arguments are cool, but don't run some crazy nat circuit stuff against a novice. At the same time, we're only going progressive if both sides consent.
I flow from the doc so talk as fast you want in the constructive but slow down on analytics in rebuttals.
Theory is cool, but if you run really frivolous shells like shoe theory i'll vote on it but I wont be happy about it. Also PLEASE tell me DTD, competing interps, rvis vs no rvis, etc. I default to the following:
Drop the Debater
Framework: I will evaluate all arguments in a utilitarian way, idk if phil is a thing in pf, but if it is feel free to run it.
Tricks are fine but they still are sus ;(
Ks are alright, just make sure there's a strong link and make sure the alt isn't just "vote aff/neg", it should be "they engage in/ do *blank* so vote them down cause otherwise *blank* will happen if we don't reject it." Please have a role of the ballot. If you're gonna read a k do it right.
If your opponent is going too fast please tell them, don't be shy. If it means they have to restart their speech, so be it, I won't hold it against you. I'm personally ok with spreading but make sure you have permission from your opponents.
Speaks (trust me, i keep a tally): I start at 27.5 speaks and take off half a point every time you clip, every time you continue to spread even though me or you opponent told you to slow down. I take off a full point every time you act snarky to your opponent or i think you're being a general asshole in cross. I'll give you a speak every time you make a good joke and it actually ties into the debate. I'll give you half a speak if the joke doesn't tie in. If you're a trad debater and you're doing progressive for the first time you get a speaks bump depending on how good you are. I'll add some points if i think you're just generally a good debater. An extra speak if you disclose and your opponent doesn't.
I saw this on a paradigm before and I love it: At the beginning of your round, I will offer you a deal. Make it through the entire round without using any filler words, stumbling, or saying "my time start NOW"(ps I start your time when you start talking) I give you 30 speaks regardless of you winning, or any thing else that made me mad (besides offensive arguments, thats an auto L20). If you mess up even once, its 26 speaks max, plus however many points i took off for other violations.
Say this before the round for an extra point: "There's a 97% chance I read your paradigm"
(I change the phrase every tourney)
Email me at email@example.com for email chains or any questions.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
I'm a 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 competed on the State Champion team for my district. I'm passionate about law and writing, my dream has focused on becoming an attorney since 5th grade (just a fun fact for y'all). 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 being Congress, PF, and LD. If you have any questions regarding my paradigm please don't hesitate to ask.
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 in 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.
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 on 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 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 decimates 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.
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 philosophy 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 it 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.
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..."