La Salle Forum Invitational 2020
2020 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Open PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
My Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
My Origin Story:
Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a freshman at The George Washington University in D.C. and I did Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and placed/finaled at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Emory, Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.
Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;
stick to 2 points
don't speed talk
arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact
cite good sources
present links clearly
use good sources
arguments flow in linear fashion
give me a human reason to vote for your side
no theory please
I have been judging mostly PF for 4 years. I leave timing the speeches up to you, but will start my timer for the crosses. I listen in to your speeches carefully. Your style, command over the topic and politeness amazes me. Looking forward to great debating!
I graduated from Strath Haven (PA) in 2016, and I did two years of policy debate there. I just graduated from Hamilton College, Class of 2020. I majored in Chinese and Russian Studies and did two years of APDA (parliamentary debate).
My email is email@example.com - if there's an email chain, I want to be on it! Also feel free to email me with any questions you have, pre-round or post-round.
I am okay with pretty much anything in policy debate. I'm just looking to watch and flow a good debate, so please read arguments you're comfortable with and you understand. There's nothing worse than watching someone struggle to answer questions in CX because their coach wrote their overviews and they don't understand anything they're saying in their speeches.
Spreading is cool, just understand that I'll be trying to flow and if I can't catch what you're saying then obviously I can't flow it. I was used to speed in high school, but keep in mind that I'm not doing policy in college, so my ears might need to warm up to it. I would suggest starting slower and gradually reaching your full speed.
If you don't go to the line-by-line, I'll be incredibly annoyed. I don't know much about the topic so that's where you're going to win/lose the debate. Make sure you warrant your arguments, no tag-line extensions please.
I am likely very unfamiliar with the current topic, but as long as your aff/DA/K/CP/whatever is coherently put together and I can flow it, I shouldn't have any problem understanding it.
In order for the neg to win on T, every level needs to be thoroughly explained and impacted. I don't want to hear "extend the voters for fairness and education" - that's not an extension. You need to contextualize the violation to the round and do a good job of extending your impacts, as well as answer every argument from the affirmative.
I think DAs are the most straightforward of arguments to make against an affirmative, and if you have good evidence and use it to your advantage, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to go for the DA and win the round. Turns case args are your best friend in these debates. Aff - please make arguments in your block on every level of the DA if possible, it sets you up incredibly well out of the 2AC.
I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of Ks in high school debate. If they're not too complicated, it's obviously fine, but I personally struggle to understand new theory in the span of a single debate round. If you're going to read Baudrillard or Foucault, you'd better understand what you're talking about and be able to explain it and contextualize it to the round. This doesn't mean don't read a K; I'm just saying that I want it to be explained and impacted reasonably well and in an understandable way. If Ks are your thing, read them.
I like them, just explain and contextualize them. Make sure your solvency advocate actually functions, and try to make your CP as specific to the aff as you can.
I feel pretty much the same way about K Affs as I do about Ks, I need a lot of explanation and contextualization throughout the round before I am fully willing to sign my ballot for the aff. Also, please do your best to explain any technical terms you use, especially if you repeat them more than once or twice. I have a lot of experience debating against K affs, but I've only ever really read one, so I'm not that knowledgeable on the arguments you'll be making.
Honestly, I'm indifferent. If you're going to spread it, however, make sure you emphasize what you want me to flow or it'll be annoying.
I did Public Forum in high school and now I am a junior at Penn.
I only weigh offense in the final focus if it was brought up in the summary speech. Explain your warrants and extend some defense. Impact analysis, weighing through framework, and turns are ways to win my ballot.
For email chains/evidence exchange: firstname.lastname@example.org
This is my third year judging PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.
- First summary does NOT need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.
- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).
- I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.
- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving front-lining delinks for summary is fine with me.
- I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.
- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (i.e. explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.
- Speed is okay but spreading is not.
- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.
- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on. That said, I HATE VOTING ON THEORY. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.
- Off-time roadmaps are fine, but please don't use an off-time roadmap so tell me you're going to go down their case, then your own case if there's time. That I get.
The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.
As a general proposition, if your evidence is flimsy, I will leave it to your opponents to call the card and then tell me in rebuttal that the evidence was flimsy. BUT, if your evidence is so poor so at the crossover into misrepresentation of what the source from which the card was cut says, prepare for me to call you out on that whether your opponent brings it up or not.
Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you and make you feel safe.
yes, i would love to be added to the email chain email@example.com
i am a freshman at fordham university. i debated policy for 4 years at la salle college high school a
i am unfamiliar with judging virtual rounds, so please bare with me while i adjust. due to being a college student in the middle of a pandemic, i have unfortunately not had the time to get very familiar with both policy and ld topics. this should not affect how i judge nor my judging philosophy; this just simply means you shouldn't automatically assume i know exactly what you are talking about or the topic related lingo. please also consider that zoom debates make it hard to hear everything, so maybe don't go max speed for spreading (if a 10 is the fastest, maybe go for like an 8)
- i can handle spreading and am cool with speed as long as you are clear (please slow down for tags and analytics).
- you should go for whatever you are most comfortable with. this applies to the neg as well. i'm not too picky when it comes to arguments, just run what you like (as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.). that being said, you have to tell me WHY you win.
- i'm cool with all off-case arguments. i'm not great at K debate. i am most familiar with the security K (ran it all the time), but still run what you'd like. just give me ROB and explain your alt well.
- i weigh T before CP/DAs but this obviously doesn't happen every time. CPs have to be net beneficial. the best DAs are ones that directly clash with the aff. specific links make me very happy
- tech > truth but you'd have to really be winning the technical debate if you're running an objectively false argument.
- substance and general correctness is cool - don't make me hate that I have to vote for you.
- impact calc wins rounds, obviously
- if I haven't covered something or if y'all have any questions feel free to email me.
i have a decent understanding of how LD works. most of what I believe in policy applies to LD. just remember that impact calc is a thing. Also please debate your values (novices too often forget to do this)
Ill give you an extra speaker point for starting an email chain, ill give you an automatic 29 or 30 if you send your complete cases to each other. Evidence calling is very frustrating to a judge in PF, especially since i was a former policy debater. I'm a firm believer in evidence quality mattering. If you aren't willing to share all your evidence then it seems suspect to me from the beginning. If you choose the option to each send your cases over, I do not want to be on the email chain since it wouldnt be fair to you for me to get access to it since i am a coach. If you feel a card is that important in the context of the round tell me to call for it at the end of the round and I will.
I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.
If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I have judged maybe 10 round this year, so i am not up to speed with topic specific arguments. Im cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a drop argument a true argument.
Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.
Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.
Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.
Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.
Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.
If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
Debate Experience: Debated for three years in high school, coached four years in college.
General: I'm pretty tab. The debaters should choose whatever arguments they're most comfortable with/is most strategic for the round. 2NR/AR decisions should be made based on the flow, not what you think I want to hear. Comfortable with speed; go as fast as you'd like while still being clear.
Aff: Again, pretty comfortable with anything. I wasn't a performative debater in high school, but I'll vote on a k aff. See below for more on how I evaluate k affs vs. framework. Make sure that the advocacy statement is clear, especially for more nuanced high theory Ks.
Neg: The best thing you can do in front of me is have a substantive internal link debate with proper impact calculus. I'm not very persuaded by teams that skip to extinction scenarios without actually debating the logic chain that leads there. Good internal link take-outs, case debate, and framing arguments are key. I'll vote on theory on either side (perm theory, condo/multicondo, t, etc.) if you run in properly and can defend your interps.
Topicality: You should be doing as much impact calc on T as you are on a DA. I'm more than happy to vote on procedural issues; this is a game, and debating the rules of the game is as legitimate as the substance. That being said, just throwing out words like fairness and education won't do that much for you. T is an argument that needs substantial time in the block to become a viable 2NR strategy. Don't go for T and five other args - it's not something you can win with 45 seconds at the stop of the block/2NR.
Dis-ads: Again, internal link chains and impact calc. Make sure to kick out properly.
Counterplans: Make sure to be clear on CP solvency mechanisms. Don't just yell 50 states CP and expect that I understand how that would work given the specific aff advocacy. Clearly lay out the net benefit to the CP (internal or external). Again, impact calc is important. Tell me how the risk of a solvency deficit compares to the risk of the DA link, and why that should matter to my decision.
Kritiks: Just like the K aff stuff above, explain the K and do the same kind of impact calc you would do on a DA or FW flow. It should be clear to my how I'm evaluating the K. For example, is this a Cap K where I might be weighing the impacts of the aff vs. the neg world, or should I be evaluating speech acts before plan implementation? Usually a FW debate at the top of the flow is helpful. Clear link chains are preferred. I'm much more persuaded by Ks that have a specific link to plan functionality rather than topic-generic links. If the K is covering dense high theory (I'm thinking about some Baudrillard, a Hegel K, anything that mentions D&G), walk me through the background.
K affs: K affs are fine, but so is a good FW debate. If you're going to run a performative K, make sure to link the performance to voters. I'm generally not persuaded by a minute-long musical intro that never gets brought up again throughout the debate. Neg, if you're going to run a FW arg please set it up like you would a T debate. I need interps and clear voters. I know they're not running a topical plan. You need to defend your interpretation of debate, why your interp is best for the debate space (fairness, education, etc.), and how the knowledge or fairness that you gain from running topical affs compares against the education that they're bringing into the round.
Above all, please show respect to everyone in the room. The fastest way to lose speaker points with me is to be inconsiderate to your opponent. I'm more than comfortable with low point wins if I think you're not treating your opponent (or partner) with dignity.
I am a licensed attorney and parent of a debater. I ask debaters to present the most professional and polished version of themselves. Remember to initially identify who you are, what side you are on, and what relief you seek from the judge. If time runs out at any time during the debate, please ask for a moment to finish your thought/sentence (be very VERY BRIEF as you are already out of time) and also state what you are asking of the judge. Never let yourself be cut off and just let that go. Make sure every chance you have to present your case is used to the very fullest and that includes finishing your thoughts and asking for what you are there to ask for--that is getting the judge to rule in your favor.
I see a debate as my court room and you as current and future community leaders and I expect you to behave as such. To that end, please treat debate communication as though it were a persuasive, calm, thoughtful and rational conversation with a judge. Kindly keep your tone and pace conversational. If I cannot understand you because you are talking too quickly, too urgently or too loudly, I will not be able to follow along with your arguments and that could lead to a reduction in points for you. Also, please do not use any swear words whatsoever. Any foul language, no matter how insignificant you believe it to be, could count against you. For example, words like, "crap" will be considered foul. If you are not sure if a word falls into this category, I suggest you do not use it. Please do not use slang, either. Some examples of slang are: "My bad," or "You guys." Please use formal phrasing and proper English whenever possible. This is a formal setting which requires the utmost respect in your word choices, much like a court room. Kindly treat it as such.
In addition to the above, I expect clear, well organized and well supported arguments to be made with solid, verifiable, significant, and current sources as support. Good luck!
I debated in public forum for 3 years in high school. I will be judging based on arguments that are carried through to summary and final focus. I am not a fan of new arguments in summary/final focus. Looking forward to some good rounds!
I am a parent judge. I have been judging public forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Speech for last 3 years. I work as a senior engineer in a defense industry.
1) I don't prefer spreading, because if I can't understand and follow you what you are saying, I can't judge you well based upon the content of your debate.
2) Be concise and clear, and present your contentions and arguments well.
3) Be respectful and civil to opponents.
4) For online tournaments, I would like to have all the contestants with their camera on during the debate round even when they are not speaking. Keep yourself muted if you are not speaking.
I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and give reasoning behind your arguments. Be civil to each other in round; rudeness is not tolerated. Humor is appreciated only if appropriate.
My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).
Debated for Whitney Young High School, 2013-2017
Assistant Coach at Lasalle College High School, 2017-Present
Update April 2020 for LD ToC:
I'm usually a policy judge, I don't like phil debates or trix
I debated primarily blackness arguments in high school. I am well-versed in traditional afro-pessimism literature like Wilderson/Sexton/Warren, but also debated everything from Black Psychoanalysis, Weheliye, and Black communism to Culp and Will to Tech K’s. That being said, I am a general fan of K’s that are well-run.
It's quite cliche, but debate what's best for you. If you're a Baudrillard team normally, don't read race arguments that you think will appeal to me if they aren’t your strongest. The same can be said for a policy team. Don’t judge adapt unless you think it’s equally as strong a strategy. I would much rather hear you read your heg/econ aff than a relatively undeveloped warming aff.
At the end of the day, unless you do/say something egregious despite my own preference for arguments, I attempt to evaluate more tech than what I personally believe is truth, so do whatever you do well.
I enjoy good cx meaning you have a well prepared set of questions that conceivably have some tie-in to an argument you wish to make in the later debates or help clarify a point. While cx might have some influence on how I frame arguments subconsciously, I won't explicitly assume a cx argument has some impact on the rest of the debate unless you reference it and flag it.
Smart arguments and pointing out how the other team's evidence might not be as strong as initially thought is a plus-- I think it's a skill that is undervalued and will help you gain ethos advantage. Additionally, people sometimes assume that the tag of the evidence is what the card is, but I enjoy debate over the spin of the card whether it's a K link or politics uniqueness card.
I’m fine with these. They aren’t my favorite style of debate to judge, but I will be engaged if you do your best to ensure that the strategies are specific and relevant. I would much rather hear specific disads that are case relevant than a generic politics shell and a states counterplan shell. However, I do recognize that midterms and states counterplan are both staples on this topic, so just make sure your block analysis is case relevant
Not the biggest fan of this strategy, but I do recognize its popularity in debate. If you’re going for framework, I’ll feel more inclined to vote for your strategy if you attempt to engage the case rather than group their case arguments and say fairness outweighs. What do I mean by engage the case? That could mean anything from reading a cap K with aff specific links, reading case defense, or making your fw shell particular to what the aff has done
Big fan if done well but that’s mostly above
I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:
1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.
2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.
3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.
4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.
5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.
I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!
P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks
A little about me: I am a former high school Public Forum debater and WV State Champion. I am currently a WVU College Policy debater. I also was a Speech competitor for all 4 years of high school (DI, OO, and POI were my events of choice). I am a junior in college with focuses in political science, American government, and policy, so I have fairly in-depth knowledge of a lot of things covered in topics. I am not a lay judge, and can/will keep up and flow the entire round.
Paradigm: I will vote first based on my flow of the round. If you are dropping points consistently and not arguing the topic, that will cause you to lose. If I have two teams/competitors that covered each point, then I will vote based on the information provided and logic and arguments used.
Speed: I have no objections to speed as long as you speak clearly. I am used to people speaking pretty fast at me. I will not deduct your speaker points if you need to speak slower. Debate is an opportunity for learning and growth, so if you cannot speak fast, don't push yourself and mess up. Just try your best to make your words clear at whatever speed you're comfortable with.
PF: Public Forum was my first debate love, so I find myself being harder on the debaters I watch in this event because I want you to be better. The most important thing to remember in PF is that NEG does not need to provide solvency for the topic and you should not introduce new information in the last set of speeches. Those are two things that I will take off points for and could possibly flow in the other team's favor. PF is also a less technically challenging debate, so you should be working hard to convince me that your side is the clear winner and best solution.
LD: While I did not debate LD, I have judged it in the past. For me, make sure that your value and VC are clear, and you stick to those throughout the round. Keep me engaged, and it will help you in the end.
Policy: Policy is what I debate now so I am used to its speed and versatility. For the AFF, provide a clear plan with clear extensions throughout. Make sure you are hitting home why the plan is good, why it is timely, and why it should be implemented. For the NEG, I'm really okay with whatever you're going to run. As a 1A/2N, DAs and CPs are my NEGs of choice, but I'm cool with whatever you're going to run as long as it makes sense and you are able to hit the AFF well. My biggest comment is that if you are going to run a K, please don't make it generic. Generic Ks are generally not wonderful to sit through because the AFF is prepared for them.
Cross-X is your time to clarify positions and evidence. I typically don’t flow it unless a really relevant point is made. That does not mean I am not listening. Don't shoot yourself in the foot during Cross.
Decorum: There is nothing I dislike more than a team who exerts superiority in the round and bullies the other team, especially if they are more experienced. Being civil goes a long way with me. I know sometimes our egos get in the way and we just can't help it, but that may reflect poorly on the outcome of the round. My biggest plea is that if you are debating someone less-experienced than you, BE NICE. They are learning, just as you did at some point.
Ballots: My on-ballot comments are worth a read, and I am not just saying that because I wrote them. Everyone has things they can improve, and constructive criticism will make you a better debater. I may also suggest some sources or readings in your comments to help you understand the topic even more. I know that this probably won't be helpful for another topic, but if I include them, it is because I think they will make you a better competitor.
Have a great tournament and good luck!
My name is RJ Tischler, and I've been volunteering as a judge for speech & debate for over 4 years now.
For debate: Clarity is key. Don't speak too fast. Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me. Explicitly state what your voters are.
Prioritize clash. That is the purpose of a debate. I am not inclined to buy sneaky arguments that "the opponents didn't respond" to contentions that you neglected to revisit & therefore didn't result in clash. If your opponent truly doesn't respond to an important contention, be sure to point that out in rebuttal or crossfire. Don't wait until summary.
If you'd like, feel free to send me your case to read along: email firstname.lastname@example.org
I have been judging PF for past 1 year. I don't have a lot of "must do's"
Speak clearly and concisely.
If you are speaking too fast, I might miss some salient points. Although I will not deduct any scores for speaking style.
Please cite your evidences. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with reliable source.
I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I did parli at Tulane and was an assistant coach at Isidore Newman in New Orleans for a couple of years. I judged a lot between 2011-2015, both in the Louisiana area and at a good few national tournaments.
Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.
I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States CP+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively. That said, feel free to go for these arguments! I just won't know the lit for more obscure Ks.
If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.
I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.
Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.
I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.
Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.
I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them. If you're stupidly fast and it's an online tournament though, slow down, particularly if it's analytics/not in a doc you're sending.
I won't vote on arguments based on out of round stuff besides disclosure theory. I will likely look to drop you if you make any out of round-related arguments besides disclosure theory, which I won't drop anyone for but I'll hate judging it.
I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.
Sending ev is off time. Don't prep during sending ev or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances. Include me in any email chains
I default to:
T before Theory before K
It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.
I dislike (but may still vote for):
Really Generic Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument)
Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it
Tons of AC spikes
Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on
Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though)
People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point)
People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks)
People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview