Congress judging paradigm

No canned speeches, please.

Provide evidence/citations for key assertions.

Clash is a good thing, re-hash not so much.

Interesting or novel arguments are always appreciated, especially if they show you've done solid research.

TLDR: Former NFA-LD debater. Make the arg, tell me why it matters. Tabula Rasa.

NFA-LD

I'm tabula rasa and use an offense-defense paradigm. Show me impacts, and win your link story.

I love most theory and have a standard threshold when voting on it. Vagueness is cool, Topicality's cool, condo's cool, vague CP theory cool, etc etc. I see disclosure theory as outside my jurisdiction as a judge of the round. I judge tech over truth

Unless the debaters tell me otherwise- I default to the NFA-LD rules.

I think CPs/Alts should be mutually exclusive and net beneficial.

I love K debate but hate debates when the K doesn't link. give me a link to the aff, and argue the K well. you need alt solvency.

I think T is a voting issue; it'll be a battle trying to convince me otherwise- win the interp/violation level.

I prefer affs with plans and am highly receptive to the TVA- if your aff has no plan you better know how to hang in the framework debate. Please interact with the theory sheet.

For most policy-style rounds: tell me why your impacts matter and win your story. I like clean debates and rebuttals, so your organization is key.

Run whatever you want at whatever speed you like, I ask that a speech drop be provided and that you listen to your opponent if they ask you to slow.

leave the personal out of the room.

policy

make a speechdrop

speechdrop.net

I am very comfortable with Ks, Theory, Speed, and Topicality debates. Will vote on stock issues if you tell me why it matters. Don't spread your opponent out, if they say "speed" and you keep going, i will be receptive to speed Ks and procedurals.

High School LD and PF

I teach LD, I'm comfortable with PF. I want IMPACT COMPARISON!! spread only if your opponent is ok with it.

I am a open debater and I will vote on almost anything if it is argued well enough. I am a flow judge, I will not fill in the blanks for you, my decision will be based on what is on the flow. I am okay with partner communication, I don't care if you stand or sit when you speak.

I will give extra speaker points to anyone who makes well formulated arguments that involve Kesha, Bigfoot, or UFOs. Speaker points are ableist so you will already almost always get high speaks. Only time I will give low speaks is if you are being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, abelist, classist ect.

Only run indigenous arguments in front of me if you know what you are talking about otherwise expect a VERY detailed RFD.

Yes, I can handle a K. You can spread but if you're not articulating and I can't understand you, I may drop some of your points, so speak clearly.

Terminalize your impacts. Give good impact calc in your last speech, tell me why you're winning.

Be respectful, we're all still learning.

Pronouns: They/Them

8-year Mock Trial Competitor, first time judging debate. I value evidence to back up arguments and clear speaking.

Debated PF for Mission San Jose for 4 years (and a bit of parli), coached for a summer, and occasionally volunteer to judge. I graduated from UC Berkeley with a business degree in 2021 and now work in finance in Charlotte.

I start evaluating the round through framework/observations, you should be able to tell me what impacts are the most important and why. Anything that’s in final focus should be in summary, extend both warrants and impacts. Don't just extend author names, explain what they say again if you want me to flow the argument through.

Please weigh otherwise I have to decide what I think is important and that sounds like a lot of work I don't want to do.

Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts. If you have a question about a rfd or want more feedback or just want to get my opinion on something feel free to email me, ndubey@berkeley.edu.

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I dont like spreading because I am a parent judge, please be clear in your speaking and make sure to signpost. I like impact calc and I will vote based on the greatest impacts. I won't disclose. Make sure you are respectful to the other team. Thanks!

Congress:

I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.

I wholeheartedly value speeches that embody the congressional debate sentiment: a focus on the American constituents who "elected" you to office. At the end of the day, that is who you represent. The best speeches are compelling, comprehensible, motivating, and delivered at a normal speaking pace (no spreading). I definitely don't mind a joke/pun or two. Speaking well, in a very compelling way, is just as important as what you are saying. Try not to read from your screen or notes too much.

For PO contests, speed and efficiency is key. The better PO is the one that successfully moves the round along with minimal hesitations, almost as if you don't even notice their presence.

World Schools Debate:

I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.

Public Forum:

Try not to spread, as Public Forum is intended to be accessible to the average non-debater. Additionally, make sure your arguments are presented in a compelling way; what you say is just as important as how you say it. For online tournaments, your arguments are communicated more effectively if you are not clearly reading from your screen for the entire speech. Try to look up at the audience every once and a while. I am also comfortable with nonconventional arguments (at least nonconventional for PF) as long as they are presented compellingly and have a clear tie-back to the topic at hand.

About me:

I participated in Congressional Debate and World School's Debate in high school, attending both CA State Finals and US Nationals. I am now an undergraduate student at Yale University.

My paradigm for congressional debate is quite simple:

I would appreciate if competitors do not spread or talk too fast: the goal of this event is to engage in insightful discussion surrounding the legislation but talking too fast often defeats this purpose.

Clash is important, but clash politely! I enjoy when debaters weigh the impacts of the opposing side with their own. However, I take into careful consideration how you carry yourself throughout the round. How you treat the PO, your fellow competitors, judges, and yourself will be a point that I look at when I cast my ballot. Please be respectful and polite because the kindness you treat your opponents with is more important that any award or trophy you can win. Especially in this online setting, you should be attentive during the round. Asking questions and taking notes lets me know that you are active and participating. With that being said, don't ask questions for the sake of raking up points on my ballot. I appreciate questions that genuinely have a purpose and move the debate forward.

Most importantly, I have no tolerance for any sort of racism, homophobia, sexism, or bigotry. I deem that unacceptable and I will not hesitate to dock you on my ballot.

Make sure to have fun and enjoy yourselves!!

Hello All!

This is my first time judging Congressional Debate! I hope I do a good job!

I usually judge speech events.

Strong preferences:

Simplify your arguments for everyday people. Make it make sense outside of the debate.

Spontaneity is important. Please engage with others.

Humor is always good. Confidence is key.

If you are having fun, then it's a whole vibe!

I am a black male so please do not say anything racist or potentially offensive. 2020 was a long year!

1. Extend debate with new ideas built off existing points of contention.

2. Preside equitably.

3. Speak like you believe what you're saying.

Definitely try to make me laugh.

Hey! My name is Amisha Kapur and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago. I will be judging today's senators based on the strength and quality of the arguments. Speaking style will be taken into consideration, but will not be the primary determinant of rankings. I will rank the presiding officer based on the efficiency and skill with which they run the round. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure and fairness will be my main indicators of skill.

I am looking for competitors who have good composure and are good at analyzing their points thoughtfully.

I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.

I did policy for Coppell High School for 3 years and public forum for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with all kinds of arguments. What I look for is arguments backed by warrants. I expect that you will paint the picture that you're trying to make for me; I should not be the one doing that work for you and I will not do that work for you.

Hello my name is Dhruv Mandal, and I'm a senior at UC Berkeley. I have participated in Model United Nations both as a delegate and as a chair for the past eight years. I am familiar with the principles of speech and debate, and what I am looking for in good debater is effective argumentation, decorum and diplomacy with fellow competitors, and thought-provoking conclusions.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Prefer that spreading is avoided in debate round, have a clear topic analysis and structured arguments. Speak clearly.

Background: I'm a sophomore at UC Berkeley, studying Business Administration. I did Congress, Parli, Extemp, and Impromptu in high school.

Parli: I will try to be a flow judge. Talk as fast as you want as long as I can understand you. I am ok with Ks/Theory/etc. but they have to have an actually topical reason you should win the round. I value teams that weigh/summarize the arguments made in the round in rebuttal speeches.

Congress: I'd say (very roughly) I care 60% about arguments, 40% about speaking style and decorum. At the end of the day, both have to be good for you to get a high rank in the round. I highly value clash, as well as pointed questions that really challenge the speaker. It's ok if one of your speeches is early in the cycle and doesn't have clash, but if both lack it then it's a huge red flag.

PO Evaluation: I highly care about efficiency. A good PO should barely be noticeable in the round, be nearly mistake-free, and think proactively about what issues might come up/how to keep the round running smoothly. A good PO should also be confident and professional but not necessarily a show-off.

Overall:

- sportsmanship is super important to me! work well with your partner/be civil with opponents (it's just a speech & debate tournament)

Cong

- PO on efficiency & equality

- senators based on speaking/performance quality & argument (both are equally important to me) + quality of questions asked

PF paradigm:

- not a fan of spreading (no need to speak slowly but just employ an understandable pace)

Experience:

- Coached Varsity & Novice IE events (domestic extemp, OO, OI, HI, Impromptu), PF

- Judged Congress, IE, VPF

- was a high school speech competitor (Lynbrook Speech & Debate co-president; SCU Dempsey Cronin Varsity Impromptu Champion, 2nd at Stanford Varsity Impromptu, CA state qualified in Impromptu; awarded in Varsity OI, HI, Impromptu)

- current Cal Mock Trial competitor

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Event Type: Congress

Hi everyone! This is my first year judging so I'm still relatively new to the concept.

The main things I look for are to establish an active presence in the chamber and continue participating throughout the entirety of the round.

I appreciate humorous, conversational-style speeches that can hold my attention alongside strong impacts to understand why your argument is relevant to me.

For late-round speeches, I look for engagement with other speakers as well as strong refutations with minimal rehash.

During questioning, I value respect, which involves letting others respond without cutting them.

Since I won't be taking any notes, but rather listening in on the debate, it's on you to distinguish yourself so that I can remember you as I submit my rankings afterward.

Good luck!

Vita Roth

El Camino Real Charter High School

English Department Chair

Speech and Debate Coach

v.roth@ecrchs.net

I currently teach Honors British Literature and AP Language and have taught almost every English course possible at the high school level, including AP Language. I have over 8 years experience teaching English at El Camino Real.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Although speech delivery is very important for students, learning how to support their argument with facts and passion is just as important, if not more important. With the time constraints imposed on students they often speak very quickly so it is important to emphasize their supporting information very clearly and concisely. What generally helps me is if the student begins with the big picture so I can tell where they are heading, and following that up with line by line details, allowing some time for me to absorb the information and take notes. They should also be prepared for their opposition by stating any known contradictions and addressing them head on. Their final focus should repeat their strongest arguments and why I should vote for their side. Also, remember to repeat these strongest arguments whenever they speak again.

I find that sometimes students try to bring in too many arguments. Then they spend too much time defending these lesser arguments and lose focus on the big picture. Remember, the opposition will try to undermine your support so the fewer you have the easier it will be to stay focused on the facts you have to support your argument.

As far as style, first and foremost, be yourself. Be enthusiastic about your topic. Be confident in your argument, don't let the opposition distract you by hammering on one of your arguments, restate your facts and then reinforce your other arguments. If the other team or person does something you feel is against the rules, don't argue with them during your time. Wait for Cross and then mention it but don't let yourself be drawn into an argument at that time. State your concern and let the judge take it into consideration. I have seen a lot of time wasted as students argue the point during the speech process. Also, a few moments of silence is OK. You don't have to fill the time with "ummm" or something similar. You are allowed to take a moment to think out your answer or your next argument.

Finally, remember, you don't have to prove the opposition is wrong, only that your argument will lead to the best outcome. This should be the focus throughout. Yes, it is a good idea to point out flaws in their argument, but it is more important to reiterate your argument and why your point is the best outcome for the issue at hand.

Don’t be rude, condescending, or otherwise insensitive - it says more about you and anyone you’re referring to.

I certainly enjoy good humor/jokes and I think certainly make the debates interesting.

Focus on the merits/demerits of the bill - how well you speak only goes so far, what you say matters a lot more.

I also enjoy well researched and well laid out speeches with good transitions - these factors make it much easier for me to relate to your perspective.

Speak passionately - it leads me to think that you believe in what you’re saying.

I like POs a lot - it's not an easy role to play. That said, be sure you’re aware of and enforce the parliamentary procedures appropriately.

If you are not the first, do make an effort to refute/corroborate prior speakers - it shows that you’re attentive, able to adjust to what is happening around you, and also that you really care about your cause.

Try to not rehash too much and bring up unique points, it advances the debate and makes you stand out.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear and logical speech. Make sure you explain your argument very clearly. Respect your opponents. Please do not interrupt your opponents during crossfire.

Hi everyone! My name's Tiffany and I'm currently a freshman at NYU Stern. I debated in Congressional Debate at Harker for three years and am now back as an assistant coach. Here are a few things I look for the most when deciding my ranks:

1. Clarity and relevance. First and foremost, I need to be able to follow the structure of your speech, understand your arguments, and identify your warrants and impacts with relative ease. Use specific signal words to help with this. This requires both strong argumentation/framing and effective speaking. After meeting this bare minimum, I'm looking for relevance. If you're giving an early round speech, the most relevant arguments are the apparent ones that shed light on the core controversies of the debate. Past that, the best way to make your speech relevant is to directly contextualize it by refuting, mentioning other speakers, or collapsing arguments. After the sponsorship, I'm looking for at least one mention of other speakers in the round. If you're giving a mid-cycle speech, it's not enough to pull out what might have been a super good and unique contention if you don't frame it as a response to the arguments already brought up in the debate OR weigh your impacts against others. By the time late-cycle speeches come around, in order to stay relevant, you have to ensure you're breaking down the debate into a few key points of contention and comparing both sides on these key points. You should always be asking yourself one fundamental question: am I helping my judge assess whether my speech is BETTER than other speeches in the round rather than just am I helping my judge assess whether my speech is GOOD. A good isolated speech does not always guarantee a good speech in a congressional debate round.

2. Speaking persuasively. I will always decide ranks primarily on my first point, especially because clarity and relevance inevitably requires some degree of effective speaking. However, if there are multiple people speaking at around the same level of clarity and relevance, I will turn towards persuasiveness to decide my ranks. For me, effective persuasion always includes conveying genuine concern and a sense of urgency. Conveying genuine concern can be done through utilizing rhetoric and speaking slowly while conveying a sense of urgency often requires momentum-building throughout your speech through varying your speed, volume, and intonation.

3. A few other things to keep in mind.

a) On an online platform, don't read off your screen. Extra points for having a setup and giving your speech standing with a legal pad the traditional way.

b) Provide solid evidence. When in doubt, use evidence.

c) Speak at different points in the debate. For example, if your first speech is a constructive, make sure your second speech is a rebuttal of some sort.

On a final note, please be respectful, kind, and easy to work with at all times. It really does come through in round if you are non-cooperative and dismissive of others, so just make sure to maintain decorum both in and outside of rounds. Debate is honestly a great way to better yourself as an individual and meet some great people along the way, utilize that! Looking forward to being your judge and hope this helps!