I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last five seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. Those are what I coach my novices, and I still feel they are the best arguments in policy debate. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

mbenyacar@gmail.com

Hi.

I am a brand new judge, but I'm an attorney familiar with evidence based arguments. Still, I would appreciate it if explain what you're reading and tell me how to weigh your arguments. When I vote, I will want to know how well you "hit" your priority. Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round. Good luck!

1. Contentions should be clearly laid out. (Ex. My first contention is...) This makes it easier for both me and your opponents to follow along with your case.

2. Please try not to spread (speak too quickly). I need to be able to understand your contentions in order to take notes.

3. I need you to have strong evidence to back up all claims. I prefer statistics and numbers over anecdotes.

4. Please be able to give your source when asked.

5. It is important that you have a strong impact and that you prove to me why your impact is more important than your opponents'.

One last note: please put the name of your school and which side you will be debating in your name. If you are comfortable, please add your pronouns too.

** For Policy Debaters, 2020-2021. My graduate academic background is in comparative criminal justice, meaning that I probably have a lot more content familiarity than a typical judge, albeit not necessarily the debate world version of the literature. I will probably have opinions about some of your sources. Ask if you think this may help or hurt you **

I am a former policy debater and have coached and judged (at least 100 rounds of each) policy, public forum and LD debate. I flow and can whatever speed you want to throw at me, but I'm not impressed by it. I am old enough to remember LD and Public Forum debate in their infancy and what traditional policy debate was.

There are no formal rules in debate; please do not assert so in the round. There are rules about evidence that you should adhere to . . .

Debate is both a competition and an educational activity, and as a judge, I try my best to be fair and to promote debate as much as possible as a learning activity. I know debaters work hard and I try not to spoil that work by inserting myself into the round. As a result, I try as much as possible to let the round be decided by you, the debaters, and not my preferences, knowledge or values as a judge. Concretely this means:

I will not vote based on whether I like or dislike you, notions of debate etiquette or style of debate. If you behave in a way that would be a concern for a good Human Resources director, I will assess it in your speaker points, not the decision for the round.

All debaters have to argue both sides of any topic or resolution; I generally do not like arguments that systematically favor one side (pro or con; aff or neg) over the other.

I think evidence is important, not because evidence makes things magically true, but because it allows me to anchor your claims to some empirical reality. Emphasizing evidence allows me to reward you for doing the learning and work before the round. Both sides have access to the same evidence. This is the easiest way for me to be fair and promote learning as a judge. You should be able to produce any evidence read in your opening speeches within 30 seconds, WIFI willing, and you should be able to produce any source read in any speech within a few minutes.

Evidence is not necessary; you can assume that I am a fairly well-read and knowledgeable person who cares about public policy and public affairs. However, I do not agree with those who think their analytical arguments somehow trump expert analysis and sources. I have watched a lot of debate rounds over a long time in a variety of frameworks, I have yet to see Ciceronian rhetoric or Socratic logic appear. I find that what most take for "analysis" is bowlderized ECON 101 on domestic topics and IR Realism for foreign policy topics; the world is much more complex than this. Policy analysis is operationalized common sense, but there is more than one common sense out there.

I try to decide the round by evaluating two competing RFD presented in the FF or 2AR/2NR. I then use my flow of the round to hypothesis-test the RFD presented to me.

During the round, if one team clearly seems to be winning, what I am thinking about is: "what would the team that is currently losing need to do to win this round?" As a result, I tend to be a squirrel on most elimination round panels.

While I think that there

MAGIC: another way to weigh arguments (Adapted from Yale Psychologist, Robert Abelson, Statistics as Principled Argument), substitute the words "arguments" or "evidence" for "effects" and I think this is a good framework to weigh.

1. Magnitude - How big is the effect? Large effects are more compelling than small ones.
2. Articulation - How specific is it? Precise arguments are more compelling than imprecise ones.
3. Generality - How generally does it apply? More general evidence and arguments are more compelling than less general ones. Claims that would interest a more general audience are more compelling.
4. Interestingness - interesting arguments/evidence are those that "have the potential, through empirical analysis, to change what people believe about an important issue". More interesting arguments are more compelling than less interesting ones.
5. Credibility - Credible claims are more compelling than incredible ones. Debaters must show that the claims made are credible. Claims that contradict previously established ones are less credible

A good summary of common logical errors made in arguments

Rhetological Fallacies:

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) I will avoid looking at evidence unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

I weigh heavily on impacts & flowing arguments through. I can handle fast speaking but not spreading. I don’t flow crossfire but I will be paying attention. Collapse on your impacts in summary first and revisit them in final focus. Summary is important for weighing! Be respectful, be clear with your points. Don't stare at me.

I am a novice judge. Please no spreading. I have been taught to flow, but am very lay. If you want me to consider it in the round, say it in final focus. Keep track of your own prep time. Be respectful.

prefer no long "off time" roadmaps

please stick to your time

looking for clear weighing of your impacts vs your opponents' impacts

avoid reading very long passages/quotes

Current PF debater at Brooklyn Technical Highschool

I am a flow judge and pay close attention to weighing and framework.

Speed is fine with me, but make sure you speak at a pace where I can still comprehend what you are saying.

Crossfire is your time to poke holes in your opponent's arguments. I don't flow crossfire, so if anything important is mentioned that you want me to flow, mention it in the speeches to follow. If you are disrespectful during crossfire, speaker points will be deducted.

In rebuttal speeches, make sure to signpost and go down the flow. Giving an off-time road map will be helpful, as long as you follow it throughout the duration of your speech. Anything that goes unresponded to will be extended through on my flow. Also, do not just read cards or taglines, rather tell me how they respond to your opponent's contentions.

Summary and FF should mirror each other. Make sure to be clear about the biggest voting issues in the round and WEIGH. In these speeches, do not go for everything. Collapse on your most important argument/ warrant. Any new evidence brought up in either of these speeches will not be flowed through.

I will keep track of your prep time and speeches, but I will not give time stamps, so I suggest that you keep your own time.

Debate is meant to be educational and fun. With that said, if you have any questions, my email is: eeppel6564@bths.edu

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

Truth beats tech every time. If you run low-probability high-impact link chains, you're gonna have a bad time. But if your opponent runs one and you don't refute it, that's also bad.

Cards matter. If someone calls a card and you don't have it, I'm going to assume you made the whole thing up.

Speak as fast as you want. You can even spread, if you like. But if I didn't understand it, you didn't say it.

If you say it on cross and then don't bring it up in your speech, you didn't say it.

Don't argue with the judge. If you argue with the judge, I'll automatically take off a whole point from your speaker score.

Hello I am a parent judge my daughter goes to Brooklyn Technical High school. No spreading please, theory is ok. In general I flow rounds very closely and make my decision off the flow.

Tabula Rasa. I will evaluate any argument you make, but you must explain why I should evaluate the argument. What is the impact? Make sure you are signposting (now the DA, onto the CP, etc.) and do not spread. If you are speaking too fast, I will yell "clear," and if you don't slow down, I won't flow the argument. If you are reading an answer to or making an analytical about something specific, name the argument the other team made. I prefer 1 logical card that you can explain why it is superior to your opponents' evidence as opposed to 5 cards that don't engage with the argument at all. Clash is extremely important to me. Try to collapse to 1-2 arguments in the last rebuttals.

DA- I love DAs. The DA debate can be a little muddy on the flow, especially when all parts of it are being contested, but I will flow it nonetheless. These are the best options for offense for me.

CP- I do like CPs. Make sure you have some turns/DAs/internal NB so you can have some offense for me to prefer it over the affirmative's plan action.

Ks- I like Kritiks, but I am not familiar with the theory/literature of the Ks this year besides capitalism. If you think you can summarize the K easily and put it in the context of the debate round, then I will treat it as a learning experience and we will go from there. This goes for all arguments: I prefer to hear specific links to the case and I want to hear real-world consequences. Make sure you take the time to explain why the aff can't perm.

T- If I think the affirmative is reasonably topical and you are unable to prove otherwise, I flow aff. T is normally used as a time suck. But if you do think the aff's case is seriously untopical, however, don't be afraid to run T.

Theory- If you show me how the theory argument is a big issue in the round, I will treat it as such. Be sure to point out the rule being infringed and give me a reason to vote on it.

K affs: I would suggest sticking to the resolution as I am not familiar with the functionality of K affs, but as long as you explain why I should vote a certain way with overviews and clear speeches, I will do my best to evaluate it.

Finally, be nice to one another. Don't make racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic arguments.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Harvard Judging Update: I am very familiar with the PF feb topic

I have competed in PF and help write the Debatetrack brief and run Public Forum Debate Academy on YouTube.

Add me to the email chain if there is one (I'll provide my email at the beginning of a round). I like speech docs and can handle up to ~200 wpm.

I enjoy debates where people incorporate some logic into the round. You can have as many arguments at the beginning of the round, just make sure there is time to explain each one in-depth (examples and a detailed impact are helpful). At the end of the round I’m likely to consider voting in one to three places, so you should condense your arguments as the round progresses (especially in summary speech for those in Public Forum). Additionally, having a narrative/story alongside your contentions is helpful and can aid in getting high speaker points.

While I don't need off-time roadmaps/order of your speech, I am happy to accept them (so long as they are brief). Regardless of that, please tell me where you are starting, whether that is stated in the roadmap or at the beginning of your speech.

Do not be aggressive in cross or speeches, I value respect, and continually interrupting the other side in the crossfire almost always is not good for your ballot. Smugness, head shaking, and smirking/laughing at your opponents will lose you speaker points.

For evidence, I like to have dates and author's last name in accordance with NSDA guidelines. Ideally, you should qualify your sources/authors and let me know what type of study or article the evidence is. After the first mention of the evidence, you can refer to the evidence as the author's last name.

In close rounds, I want to be persuaded and I may just listen to both Final Focus/LD Neg Rebuttal & Aff Rebuttal speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

If you put in believable and effective weighing mechanisms, then I will almost certainly vote for you if there is no other clear-cut comparative analysis. If there are multiple weighing analyses from both sides, I vote for the most compelling (best explained, most realistic) weighing. You can also refute the weighing and I am thus less likely to vote off that weighing unless it is defended.

In particular, I find the truest arguments to be the best place to vote. Thus, discussion of probability is usually more important than the scope or magnitude of an issue. This is not to say scope is unimportant, I am willing to default to the believability of an argument before I consider how many people are impacted.

If there's no weighing, I generally vote for the argument that has been defended the most. In Public Forum, I am looking for arguments to be extended in Summary and Final Focus if they want to be considered

As for time, I will let each team finish up a sentence/concept but f a new response is made overtime, I will not consider it.

In crossfire, I appreciate two things. First, logical questions are appreciated. Second, evidence indicts are also good, although they can be a tad tougher to execute.

At the end of the day, while I do flow, I am more lay than most teams recognize. Great rounds for me include the NSDA National and State finals because they incorporate logic and analytics with solid evidence. I respect a mature, calm, and logical team.

Theory - I don't think I am qualified to vote for a full theory shell but if the opponents have bad evidence ethics I am open to theory. Paraphrasing theory is ok as well, just don't make the shell too technical

Kritiks - really not familiar to these.

Any online tournament: nfromuspf@gmail.com

Hey! I debated two years on the circuit for University School under the code University MN (you can tab stalk if you want). I am a standard tech judge.

PS:

1) Defense is not sticky

2) I really care about extension of arguments

3) turns need to be weighed if you want me to vote on them

Former PF debater; I’ll be flowing. Please don’t bother bringing up that point you dropped in an earlier speech. I’ll only be considering arguments that were introduced in constructive and extended in summary.

I won’t be timing you guys; I stole a lot of prep and speech time in high school so it wouldn’t seem fair to. Feel free to time your opponents since I won’t be managing time, but try not to be a jerk about it.

I don’t care a ton about eye contact. If you were trained to do it, ok.

I can handle speed, but please make sure to enunciate. If during a speech, an opponent says “speed” I fully expect the speaker to slow down and if they do not, they can expect their speaks to be dropped.

I don’t mind aggressive speaking styles but if you are excessively mean to your opponent in a way that actively makes it difficult for them to speak in the debate, I am completely comfortable with tanking your speaker points.

I don’t flow crosses, but I’ll be listening. If there’s something said in cross you’d like me to consider, please make a note of it in your speeches, or I won’t consider it in my RFD.

I don’t love card wars. I probably won’t follow it very well, so let’s not do that. If someone says something really outrageous, feel free to ask me to call for their card and I’ll take time at the end of the debate to consider it. If the debate comes down to magnitude, I will most definitely have to see the cards for those numbers.

A clean win for me would probably look like this: responsive rebuttals from the second speaker, comparative weighing in summary at the latest, a clear explanation of why you are winning in summary/final focus with consistent weighs.

If you’d like to hear the RFD please wait for 4-6 minutes after the end of the debate.

I'm a relative newcomer to the world of debate, so any arguments that are done at a speed that an average human would struggle to comprehend, I might also have trouble following. Arguments that clearly highlight the impact are particularly important. During crossfires, I really appreciate questions that allow your opponent to actually answer meaningfully, as opposed to critical statements with a question mark at the end (i.e. "You proved that your argument wasn't valid... don't you agree?"). I keep time and expect you to do the same.

sammrich@umich.edu

Hello!

I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).

For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.

For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.

Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!

Background: I debated Parli in High School and College. I am currently a coach for PF, have been judging PF ever since

-I don't mind speed, just speak clearly

-Time yourself, I will also keep time and will stop flowing when you run out of time

-I do prefer when you stand when giving speeches

-I vote on impacts. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims. Extend these through final focus.

-Please cut your cards in advance - if you can't find your card quickly, I will assume it does not exist and strike it from my flow

-I expect you to frontline, and please weigh in final focus

-I will not flow crossfire, if it is important bring it back in your speeches.

-Please signpost, makes flow easy

Please send all evidence and speeches to mgt2130@columbia.edu

Hi I'm Jason.

Former Public Forum Debater of 4 years-

Be respectful and nice to each other, it's just a debate round.

I'm not the super serious judge you may find in other places but I am also not the judge that knows nothing.

I will try my best to give the most feedback to each team in hopes that every round you compete in, you'll learn something. Have fun! It's a great privilege to be able to participate in activities like these. Debate and public speaking can really go a long way in life.

"You learn more from failure than from success. Don't let it stop you. Failure builds character."

april 2024 npdl:

hi! my name is melanie (she/her), and i'm a former high school PF debater, and i currently compete in APDA for nyu.

i think the tldr is basically make it as clear as possible for me in how i'm supposed to evaluate the round—i'm a very large fan of off time roadmaps and signposting, please weigh your arguments, have the arguments you want to vote on in rebuttals, etc. i don't really like or have a ton of experience debating or judging theory, kritiks, etc. and i can't promise that i will understand how to properly judge it; if you do run it, may it not be frivolous, and may the mechanics be explicitly explained.

i can flow like 260wpm and up but i would prefer not to. creative arguments are fun; silly arguments are fun. i try to be tabula rasa and am willing to buy an untrue argument if it is uncontested.