Hi!

I'm a senior at Vestavia Hills in my fourth year of LD!

My email is bradyrm18@gmail.com. I don't expect you to send your case to me at novice tourneys, but feel free to email me if you have any questions or concerns!

For novice

Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.

Framing - Framework is extremely important, and I would like to see a lot of clash here. Try to bring it up and weigh your framework against your opponent's in every speech - especially the last one!

Evidence - Please give me the warrant behind the argument, not just the card. Make sure you have the cards ready to produce in case your opponent asks for them. If your opponent points out mis-cutting or flaws in evidence, I'll call for them at the end of round, so make sure they can be emailed to me.

Offense - I love Impact calc. Weigh your impacts! Prove why they should be acted upon and why it should be under your framework. Even if you have amazing defense but very little offense it will be hard for you to win the round.

General - Signpost! Please tell me where you are in the flow. For example, when making a new argument, tell me what contention it applies too, don't just read a bunch of cards and expect me to know where they go. Bring up arguments from cross in your next speech for them to be flowed. Point out concessions or anything that was not responded to and tell me to extend them across the flow. Please crystalize and give voters in your last speech!

Speaks - Debate how you debate best - I'm not super picky. Good speaks meant you spoke clearly, used time wisely, articulated well, always remained polite and respectful, and never said anything offensive or unethical (penalized by down vote and minimal speaks for this). Jokes and puns are welcome! Remember an L isn't the end of the world and remain confident!

Good luck and have have fun!

I am a varsity member of LD debate and I've done both middle and high school level debate.

I appreciate roadmaps before each speech (except 1AC)

I expect to see framework debate since that is a fundamental part of LD

I am not a fan of spreading, so share your case if you are going to do that. I'm okay with speed, but I need to be able to understand you.

Signposting is very important during rebuttals.

Voters help me weigh the round.

Most importantly, keep the debate clean. At the end of the day, debate is meant to encourage critical thinking and improve real-life skills. Let's do our best and have fun whilst in the round.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. I am more than happy to answer them. Looking forward to seeing you guys do an amazing job!

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

Add me to the Email chain: mhc1721@gmail.com

Judging Preference:

1.LARP

2.Topical K’s

3.Nontopical K’s

4.Theory

5.Phil

6.Spikes/Tricks

I'm a tech judge, I will be judging off the flow, I can understand almost everything and will vote for almost anything but if you do go for tricks I will tank speaks.

Just be nice and have fun!

@maggie.f.doyle@gmail.com; create a chain and add me to it

i did pf for four years on the alabama and national circuit

i am strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence: please read full cards,ie directly quoted and cited text

Hi! I'm Tristan and I've competed in Lincoln Douglas and congress at MA for three years and will compete this 2021-22 year in both.

My email is lunaphin62@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I do not care what you run. I personally debated everything from k's to larp to theory so I have experience running and judging most everything.

However, please limit the high theory. I'll evaluate it regardless but trust me, that will not be enjoyable for me or your opponent.

Additionally, regardless of what you say during the round I will immediately drop you if you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. As Spongebob once said, "don't be a jerk."

I'm tech over truth so idc about information outside the round, so if you don't say something in the round, it doesn't affect my decision.

Spreading is fine but please be clear, if I don't understand I'll say clear and if you don't become clear after three clears I'll stop flowing.

Always share cases, it makes sure the round doesn't turn into straw mans and helps every debater keep up regardless of skill.

If you're running something crazy then please let me know before the round and for the love of god tell your opponent. If they are not prepared for what you're running then I will not hesitate to drop you. No one should be excluded from the debate space.

Random Thoughts

Don't call me judge or sir, it's weird.

You don't have to read the resolution at the beginning of the round, I'll know the resolution and you can go straight into case.

Keep your own speech time please.

Please disclose prior to the round if you're running crazy stuff. If you're running trad stuff no need to disclose.

I try not to let my bias influence the round. I'm a high schooler and I pick the winner of the round. I have no position for you to appeal to so just debate the way you want.

Every framework is the same between vcs, robs, and rojs. Just because you use different names doesn't mean they're different layers, they're all ways in which I evaluate the round, always clash on framework no matter the name.

im not one of those people who gets triggered if ur chill in the round. ill give u higher speaks if ur funny

You better know your case. No matter how crappy you think your case is if I can tell it's one you wrote or put time into and your opponent didn't I'll feel no inclination not to vote down the person who stole cases or didn't put effort into their prep.

RVIs are cool.

I'm tech so I don't assume anything, you need proper warranting no matter how common sense of an argument you think it is.

Don't worry about gotcha questions in cx because one if you don't bring it up in a speech I won't evaluate it and two it makes you seem like a jerk if done in the wrong way.

CX is for questions, prep time is for prep, that's how debate is structured.

In any case, it's your round so you control where the debate goes, I'm just along for the ride. You do you, run whatever, and most of all have fun. Debate is most of all to have fun so that is the primary goal of the round. If you have any other questions please bring them up before the round and I'll be happy to clarify.

Trigger Warnings

If your opponent has trigger warnings on their profile and you ignore them I will drop you immediately and no further debate will be necessary.

If your trigger warnings are not posted on your profile or otherwise communicated to your opponent then you will not be given such leeway.

May the odds be ever in your favor.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

My name is Jason Han.

Pronouns are he/him.

jasondhan72@gmail.com

I'd like to be in the email chain.

DISCLAIMER: 1) Assume I know nothing about the topic 2) Don't speak too fast, I no longer do debate and don't particularly practice listening to spreading or flowing in my student life 3) If something in the paradigm seems important, please ask because perhaps some of my opinions have changed.

For the Vestavia Novice Tournament

It's fine if you don't understand everything here. I want there to be good clash that's well signposted with you displaying that you know your opponents arguments and why they are wrong. Good impact calculus would be a very quick way for me to see why I should vote you up. Please don't be rude, especially in CX, because everyone here is new and I don't want anyone to be turned away from debate just because someone was mean at their first tournament. On the Framework level, take advantage of your framework cards to refute your opponent when necessary. Just for the sake of fairness, I won't weigh the arguments more progressive that DAs and CPs.

General

Tech over truth, this doesn't mean I like trix, but you do you. Do whatever you want during speeches and cross ex whether that means sitting or standing or like laying I guess, whatever makes you comfortable. Please be respectful of me, your opponent, and the building you're debating in.

Instant Drops

If you say anything offensive/racist/sexist or anything of the type, then i will immediately vote you down.

If you are dishonestly cutting, sourcing, or taglining (this is really common, but there's a little leeway so I wouldn't suggest going for this to much as like an evidence ethics argument and instead say no warrant or something like that) any evidence I will vote you down even if your opponent doesn't point it out. Don't just throw buzz words like evidence ethics without actually thinking it through.

Spreading

I'm fine with speed, but I need good articulation just like every other judge out there, and I want to be on the email chain. Please be clear and slow down for tag lines, sites, and probably analytics too (especially if you take those out of the speech doc). I will say "clear" if you are not enunciating enough or aren't loud enough for me to hear.

Misc

Cross-Ex is mostly binding, and I will pay attention. If you want me to write something down or take special notice of a contract you make just refer to me (either Jason or the judge)

I prefer if you just run prep down from 4 minutes. When people just set a timer for like 2 minutes, they just ask to use more time after those 2 minutes end and take like 15 seconds to set up another timer.

ROB

I'll default to choosing whoever debates the round better. I do consider myself to be in the role of an educator in the round so other ROB apply. However, as an educator, I will value fairness very highly, so if abuse happens, you'll need to have some extremely convincing weighing arguments or counterinterps.

Phil

I'm fine with any frameworks that you want to run. I like specific frameworks based on multiple links or syllogisms because they are usually applied more strategically in round, but Util is fine. FW debate should be well warranted, and I want good signposting and summarizing of your opponent's arguments so that I know you understand them.

Plans and Counterplans

For Aff, if you're not running a plan, I'm going to assume you are advocating the whole resolution as your plan unless you specifically say you are defending the resolution as a general principle instead. More specific plans can provide unique impacts and link chains, but I'm open to Topicality if you're opponent thinks that it's too specific or extra.

For Neg, I like having CPs. If not, I'm going to assume that you advocate for the Status Quo instead of the resolution. CPs have to be competitive with the Affirmative, otherwise, you'll be permed. For the status of counterplans, I'm ok with both 2 conditional in a normal round, although I'll still weigh theory arguments if Aff chooses to go for them. More than 2 conditional advocacies is much more sketchy and will warrant lower speaks at the least, but I will weigh it in the round if the Affirmative doesn't run theory or point out abuse, but if they do, you're gonna be on an uphill battle. The Affirmative gets to choose whether their perm is a test of competitiveness or another advocacy, so if you're running conditional, then you should beware.

Disadvantages and Advantages

I will weigh these. Unique arguments, link chains, and impacts would make me prefer these a lot more, not some stock link chain that somehow just escalates instantly to extinction. I really don't like the 1% probability of extinction means you have to vote for me argument. However, link chains to extinction that seem actually probable are fine. DAs and Ads can be really useful to create good impacts in a round, so I'm going to be looking for impact calculus and weighing.

Kritiks

I'm really like unique Kritiks, usually ones like Cap and Biopower are not that special. I don't read the lit much, so if you're going to run them, I want a good overview in the next speech. i still really like the arguments. Usually I default to Theory over K, but if you give me good reasons to think otherwise, I will weigh K over Theory. For the status of the Alt, it's the same as CPs but on identity K's a conditional Alt will come off as insincere to me which means lower speaks.

Theory

I normally weigh Theory over K. Interps should be specific and I want good clash on the standards and even voters if you decide to go for that. I'm fine with both Competing Interps and Reasonability, but I will say that I still have my own opinion and will be as objective as I can on Competing Interps. The brightline for Reasonability should be fair, and if the opponent convinces me it isn't, I will have to just drop Reasonability as a whole. For Competing Interps, if there is no in round abuse, you really have to articulate EXTREMELY well what type of abuse is justified and why that matters in a round with no actual abuse. Spikes are fine in the 1AC.

Truth Testing vs. Comparative Worlds

I default to Comparative Worlds, but you can advocate for either and I will choose whichever one has better argumentation.

Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is cmj0068@auburn.edu

Notes:

I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.

Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.

Keep your own time

I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, explanatory analysis that makes it to where i have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo and some actor, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

- reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- very high threshold for disclosure against novices and / or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against those who don't know how to disclose / know what it is should be taught out of round.)

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

Hey! I'm Snekha. I am currently a Freshman at UAB. I served as Captain of the VHHS LD Debate Team my senior year!

Pronouns are she/her.

Email --- snekharaj.nkl@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before the round!

General

Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.

Speak clearly and engage with your opponent's arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Framework

Be sure to explain what your framework is, and how I should evaluate it. Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it.

Disads

I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.

Other

I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.

Please be nice to everyone, and have fun!!

I did circuit LD, qualified to TOC twice, and taught at TDC once. A few things to note:

1. I graduated in 2015 and have been very uninvolved in the activity since then. My ability to understand speed has significantly lowered. You are best served thinking of me as a good lay judge than a circuit judge at this point.

2. I need more explanations for arguments than other judges. If you say “A comes before B” and I can’t summarize your reasons why “A comes before B” in my RFD, I won’t pull the trigger on that argument.

3. I am unfamiliar with most of the K lit. Feel free to run them, but please explain warrants in cards as much as possible and slow down for complex arguments. I am more skeptical of non-topical Ks, so if you read one, you should spend more time justifying the ROTB.

4. I ran a decent amount of theory, but since graduating, I have disliked frivolous theory and spiky cases more and more.

Hello! My name is Nandini Reddy! I debated Novice LD for my sophomore and the beginning of my junior year. I am currently debating PF.

PF: Just don't run plans please! Make sure you weigh, especially during Summary and Final Focus.

LD: I really like traditional, but if you run other stuff, just explain it to me REALLY WELL.

General: Please stand and look at me during your speeches and cross; that'll help your speaker points. Make sure to keep your time for prep and speeches. Make sure to only finish the sentence when the timer goes off, not add any new arguments. Signposting and roadmaps are needed.

Flow/Speed: I'm usually fine with any speed but be sure to annunciate. I'll say "slow" if I really can't understand.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I'll strike the card from my flow. I'll call for cards at the end of the round if I am unsure about the author's intentions or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut.

Crossfire: I won't flow new arguments from cross so be sure to bring up anything in your next speech if you want it on the flow. Please be mindful and polite or you might lose speaker points.

Framework: I will weigh the framework if you keep it up, but if it is not weighed in your final speech, it won't really be considered.

Offense: Weighing impacts is key for me. Make sure you give voters.

No matter what your record, keep your head up! Debate has taught me so much and is a learning experience. Be sure to come talk to me if you have any questions!

Good luck with the round and the rest of the tournament!!

I’m a former HS LD debater, current Junior in College. Preface: There's too much stuff to go over in text and I don't presume to have considered nearly enough scenarios, so you can ask as many questions as you want before round, I don't mind at all.

Prog Stuff:'

If either debater just straight up isn't comfortable with any progressive stuff then I would prefer it if we stayed away from it. If you still have to, then go ahead but I have to think your explanation is clear enough that the other debater could reasonably figure out a way to respond. Otherwise, I think it's abusive.

I'll pretty much evaluate any arg you want to bring to the table. But one thing to keep in mind when doing so is I haven't actively debated in 3 years so my ability to properly follow any new or niche args you bring is mostly dependent on whether or not I can understand your perspective. So basically don't throw a bunch of tech jargon that I haven't actively used in 3 years and expect it to stick.

I'm fine with K's, T-shells, CP's, basically anything but performance. Performance cause I don't think I can fairly evaluate it.

K's - the link has to be super clear and can't be tangential. I kind of subscribe to the idea that unless an analogy/link is close to a direct 1 for 1 then it's not tenable. Kind of like how technically almost anything can be an analogy to Christ or Hitler. If I think your K is abusive along those lines of too much extrapolation and your opponent calls you out for it, I'll probably weigh that heavily. So just gut check whether or not you think your K is actively relevant.

Tricks - Go for it, if the opponent is able to somewhat prove that it's abusive and you just respond with "nuh-uh people run it all the time" then I'm gonna dock you for it.

Speaking

If you spread without clearly enunciating, I will ask you to speak more clearly, slow down, and restart your speech. I'd prefer if it didn't get to that point, but if nothing changes - I'll just do my best and I'll evaluate what I can understand.

General stuff

60% Tech, 40% Truth - I vote Tech but I think truth is a valid argument and gut reasonability checks are fair if they are justified. I don't like the tech vs truth evidence credibility rabbit hole unless that becomes the entire debate. Most of the time I'll wash that and try to vote off other args.

I don't read philosophy anymore and I don't follow much of current debate standards, but I have a pretty heavy background.

I don't like hyper specific jargon in general because I think it just makes debate more inaccessible and doesn't translate into any useful skill. This doesn't mean don't use debate terms but if you bring up a philosophy term specific to your case then you better explain it - presume I've never heard of it because that's how I'll evaluate it.

You can postround me, but I'll dock your speaks if it fails. And by postrounding I mean if I completely missed an argument - not arguing against me. Keep in mind everyone thinks differently and has a totally different internal scale on every single decision. There is no universal correct ruling and every decision I make is ultimately based on my own internal scale. And you're probably not gonna change that. So postrounding is only reserved for if I just forgot about something.

Also if you just seem too rude or aggressive in round I'll dock your speaks. Debate should never feel intimidating or like bullying.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I'm Alma (she/her), I'm a current uni student and debated at Auburn High. I did LD/PF/BQ (in terms of preference and how much I did them, mostly LD, then BQ, then PF).

I'm okay for most arguments, though I'm best at evaluating trad debate (I've been out of LD for a minute, I'm not super confident in how well I'd be able to judge the newest progressive args- read them at your own risk, though I'm down for standard Ks, well-explained phil, theory, etc).

Some general stuff:

• don't be racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist etc in round; I'll drop you with minimal speaks
• read trigger warnings for the sake of both the judge and your opponent
• don't read theory/progressive arguments (especially not disclosure and stuff like that) against novices/trad debaters who can't engage (independent voters or theory against violent arguments are okay). It's not nice and it's bad practice- keep debate accessible.

More specific stuff:

I evaluate off the flow, and via framework unless given an alternative role of the judge or role of the ballot. Please send a doc if you're gonna spread.

Please do impact calc and tell me how to evaluate the round– it makes it easier to write the ballot in your favor :)

If you have any questions, ask! I'll be glad to explain any part of my paradigm that's unclear or give feedback.

Hey! I have been debating on the high school level for 3 years, and I have done both LD and PF (but mostly PF). Make sure to speak clearly; I will be judging off of the flow, so if I cannot understand what you say, then it will likely not flow across. I am good with speed when talking, but make sure it is understandable. Also, BE POLITE during the round (especially cross), this will reflect in your speaker points.

I will always prefer warrant over a card. Give me the logic behind the argument, not just something like "Smith 2012 says climate change is good," because there is absolutely no logic behind the argument. If there is sketchy evidence during a round, I will be calling it, so just keep it clean. Make debate about argumentation NOT misconstruing evidence.

Constructives: make sure to have links in your contentions, speak clearly, and emphasize impacts.

Rebuttals: go down the flow, signpost, make sure to have good logic and support it with legit evidence.

Summary: WEIGH! impacts are incredibly important during a round. Make sure to extend your arguments, remember I am going off of the flow. Collapse -- if you try to go for every single argument in the round then that will serve to your detriment, so just take some prep and think about it: Which argument holds the most impacts, will win us the round, and was was left uncontested by the other team/has been a major part of the round.

Final Focus: show me why you have won, any new arguments/evidence will not be flowed. Make sure summary and final focus go hand in hand with each other.

Email me at srija.vem@gmail.com with any questions.

Hi! I'm Manish (he/him).

Debate experience in Policy and LD

Email for questions/email chain: mychili005@gmail.com

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before round.

*For Prefs Read Further Down

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ria Shah Novice Tournament:

This is a novice tournament so I will default to traditional debate. Personally, I am fine with running a progressive argument, but for the sake of this tournament being a learning opportunity, I would rather you stick to the traditional arguments.

Just because you run a progressive argument does not mean you win the round automatically. I still expect that you run the argument well. I may dock your speaks if it is sloppy.

If you are on the receiving end of a progressive argument, don't get discouraged. Try your best because, at tournaments like these, there is a chance that your opponent probably does not know what they are doing either. That means I might vote for you just because the work on the argument was sloppy/messy and it did not make any sense.

This is a novice tournament and so your main goal is to get experience and feedback so that you can improve for the future. Sure winning is awesome and if you win kudos to you and congratulations, but the losses are also just as important to having a successful debate career.

Please do not come into the round thinking I know everything you are talking about. Please explain your arguments and why you won as if I know nothing about the topic.

In the end, make sure to have fun and always try your best! It is okay to slip, stutter, or forget something. Debate is a growth activity. You get better over time with practice and experience. Just come into round excited and to have fun. The judges are not here to scrutinize you. We are here to help and answer any questions you have.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prefs:

I do not have a preference for traditional or progressive (scroll down for progressive prefs).

Do not be offensive and do not be racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic etc. or I will vote you down and dock your speaks. Be respectful of everyone's identity, especially pronouns. I expect that you have an overall good presence in the round.

Provide trigger warnings if you will talk about sensitive topics.

Specifics:

1) Tech > Truth - but do not say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain why the concession is important and what does it mean for you and the round. Please do question recency of evidence and author quals because those can also disprove an argument effectively, but please explain why your evidence is better in that matter.

2) Framework - Util is Trutil but I will listen to any framework, so you may have to do a little more work to show that your impacts outweigh. Remember that framework comes first! Framework is the lens through which I evaluate the arguments/impacts made in the round.

Make sure not to spend too much time on framework in rebuttals. Just do enough work so that you get your point across and you answer your opponent's claims effectively and efficiently.

Explain why I should vote for your framework and not your opponent's. Tie your impacts back to the framework and weigh too.

3) Spreading - I am fine with speed, but please send out a speech doc. Please slow down on tags and authors. Please slow down a little, emphasize, and be clear on analytical arguments. For novice tournaments, I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but it's a good idea to not spread.

4) Flow - The being said about spreading, if it is not on my flow, I will not consider it and it is as if it was never said. Extend through the rebuttals if you want me to evaluate it.

5) CX - I will not flow cross, but bring up anything from cross if you want me to flow it in your speech. Please be respectful during cross.

6) Weighing -Please do it! It makes it easier on me to determine who won. I am also a big fan of Impact calc. It helps me weigh the round. Magnitude, Time-Frame, and Probability are your best bet with me as your judge.

7) Time - I can keep time but I expect you to keep your own time.

8) Signpost and Off-time roadmaps - Great for keeping the speech organized and makes flowing easier. Try to stick with the roadmap you give. Do not go back and forth between flows, it is harder to flow and I will tend to miss arguments that you make.

9)Rebuttals - I would like to see you do some analysis during rebuttals i.e. don't rely heavily on just using cards for rebuttals. Use your critical thinking skills and make analytics. Also, restating the card will not get you anywhere. Explain how it interacts with your opponent's arguments, what the purpose is, and what does it mean for you when you give voters.

10) Speaks - Speaks depend on your demeanor in round and how well you articulated your arguments.

I will give you +0.5 speaks if you reference something relevant from pop culture in your speech. +1.0 for anything chemistry or biology related.

Don't just make a generic reference or state it at the end of a speech (like I love this *specific song* or *specific actor*). It needs to be entwined in your speech somewhere and it makes sense within the context of your speech. Same goes for the chemistry or biology reference.

But don't waste your time on this too much. I would rather you focus on the arguments presented than trying to get those extra points. I usually give pretty high speaks unless there is a reason for me not to.

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

For Progressive Args:

I would not encourage running these args at novice tournaments, but whatever floats your boat.

1) K's- I just started getting into the literature, but that does not mean I know everything and that I understand what you are talking about. Although, I do enjoy a good K debate.

If you do run a K, make sure to CLEARLY explain your arguments thoroughly and why you win the round.

I lean Aff on framework, so neg will have to explain well why I should vote for the neg's framework. Explain how the Aff links and how the perms do not solve. Also, explain the alt well and how it solves too.

You can run a K Aff, but I'm probably not the best judge for that. I lean neg on T-Framework, so Aff will have to clearly answer T-FW well.

2) CP's - I am a big fan of these. Just make sure you have a plan-text if running a CP. I think they are fair, but Aff can certainly run theory, especially when there is in-round abuse. State and explain the net benefit to the CP and answer the perms.

3) DA's - I love these. They're one of my favorites to run on neg. Make sure you explain the uniqueness and the link and the impact well. Tie it back to the framework and weigh.

4) LARP - Aff's can have plan-text but they don't have to, but Aff's have to defend the resolution.

5) Theory - If you do run theory, just be aware I have a little trouble judging theory so you may have to do some work on explaining it. I have gotten a bit better at it, but just make sure you do adequate work on it. Same goes for T. If you run ASPEC without asking in CX, I will not consider it.

6) Tricks - I think they're dumb and won't acknowledge them.

7) Phil - Keep in mind I have little to no experience with Phil debates. Remember, I am open to anything, but please explain your arguments well.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have any more questions about anything specific not stated here or for clarification, please ask me before the round starts.

Also, please ask me any questions you have after the round/tournament.

I look forward to seeing some amazing debates! Good Luck!