Etiquette

I don't mind sassiness in debates. Be confident, but classy.

When not debating, be respectful.

Personal attacks suck. Don't use them.

Open CX is fine.

I don't mind taking control of your own Cross Ex and shutting up your opponent.

I don't count flashing as prep, just be reasonable.

If you think I'm being biased or unfair, respectfully let me know after the round. I always want to be a better judge.

General/Organization

Roadmap please.

Please number and/or short tag your arguments, don't just say "next" and expect me to follow. If I miss some of your arguments because you didn't clearly state that you moved on to the next argument, there's a good chance they're lost from my flow.

Try not to jump between different arguments on the flow. Tell me clearly which argument you're on or attacking.

I don't like new arguments in the rebuttals or finishing your Aff/Off-Case arguments in the second constructive -- debating backwards = no early clash. It's lame and it's a lazy strategy 95% of the time.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. I will say "Clear" if you're mumbling, but it might count against your speaks if I have to correct you multiple times.

Kritiks

Know your kritik and general worldview post-alt. If you're not consistent about the worldview or don't explain it well enough, it's hard for me to vote on them.

I like consistency across the flows, so if you're running a K about real-world impacts or rhetoric, you shouldn't bite the K on other flows. If you run/presume multiple worlds theory with a K that is about real-world impacts or rhetoric, you tend to lose a ton of weight on my K ballot.

Policy Stuff

Everything is fine- just please explain the story of your argument clearly past the first speech

Specifics -

I don't like PICs but will vote for them if no abuse arguments are made or if you defend well against them.

Can't fiat solvency - only that the plan will pass through Congress.

Conditional advantages are not my thing but I will vote for them as long as you defend condo well enough.

Procedurals/Framework

T, FW, and other Procedurals are fine and I like them more than most judges - just explain them thoroughly as if I was a child and show me how other interps hurt you or debate generally.

Have fun! If you're not having fun debating, chances are I'm not either.

The Bee Movie

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let's shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? - Barry? - Adam? - Oan you believe this is happening? - I can't. I'll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I'm excited. Here's the graduate. We're very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B's. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. - You got lint on your fuzz. - Ow! That's me! - Wave to us! We'll be in row 118,000. - Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! - Hey, Adam. - Hey, Barry. - Is that fuzz gel? - A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I'd make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I'm glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. - Hi, Barry. - Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. - Hear about Frankie? - Yeah. - You going to the funeral? - No, I'm not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don't waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That's why we don't need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp... under the circumstances. - Well, Adam, today we are men. - We are! - Bee-men. - Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of... ...9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it's just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. - Wonder what it'll be like? - A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as... Honey! - That girl was hot. - She's my cousin! - She is? - Yes, we're all cousins. - Right. You're right. - At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. - What do you think he makes? - Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. - What does that do? - Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it's done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you'll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn't know that. What's the difference? You'll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven't had one day off in 27 million years. So you'll just work us to death? We'll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! "What's the difference?" How can you say that? One job forever? That's an insane choice to have to make. I'm relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We're bees. We're the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don't know. But you know what I'm talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. - Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! - Wow. I've never seen them this close. They know what it's like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don't come back. - Hey, Jocks! - Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You're monsters! You're sky freaks! I love it! I love it! - I wonder where they were. - I don't know. Their day's not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can'tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That's more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It's just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you're wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren't they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. - Oouple of Hive Harrys. - Let's have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! - Oh, my! - I never thought I'd knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn't it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We're hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. - Six miles, huh? - Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you're not up for it. - Maybe I am. - You are not! We're going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you're interested in? - Well, there's a lot of choices. - But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It's a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn't right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That's a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son's not sure he wants to go into honey! - Barry, you are so funny sometimes. - I'm not trying to be funny. You're not funny! You're going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! - You're gonna be a stirrer? - No one's listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I'm gonna get an ant tattoo! Let's open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I'll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody "dawg"! I'm so proud. - We're starting work today! - Today's the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal... - Is it still available? - Hang on. Two left! One of them's yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. - What'd you get? - Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. - You want to go first? - No, you go. Oh, my. What's available? Restroom attendant's open, not for the reason you think. - Any chance of getting the Krelman? - Sure, you're on. I'm sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey's always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He's dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That's life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should... Barry? Barry! All right, we've got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine... What happened to you? Where are you? - I'm going out. - Out? Out where? - Out there. - Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You're gonna die! You're crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone's feeling brave, there's a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. - Look at that. - Isn't that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck's restricted. It's OK, Lou. We're gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. - Thank you. - OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy's in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! - That's awful. - And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. - Antennae, check. - Nectar pack, check. - Wings, check. - Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let's move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I'm out! I can't believe I'm out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It's got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! - Ever see pollination up close? - No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It's a little bit of magic. That's amazing. Why do we do that? That's pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I'm picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don't we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You're reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don't know, but I'm loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It's a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! - Guys! - This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama's little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don't think these are flowers. - Should we tell him? - I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you're about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There's a bee in the car! - Do something! - I'm driving! - Hi, bee. - He's back here! He's going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don't move, he won't sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow... the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Oan't fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don't need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This... Drapes! That is diabolical. It's fantastic. It's got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What's number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don't go for that... ...kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn't talk to them. They're out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they're flabbergasted, can't believe what I say. There's the sun. Maybe that's a way out. I don't remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don't kill him! You know I'm allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I'm just saying all life has value. You don't know what he's capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I'm not scared of him. It's an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. - Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? - Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. - You could put carob chips on there. - Bye. - Supposed to be less calories. - Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It's a bee law. You're not supposed to talk to a human. I can't believe I'm doing this. I've got to. Oh, I can't do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can't. How should I start it? "You like jazz?" No, that's no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I'm sorry. - You're talking. - Yes, I know. You're talking! I'm so sorry. No, it's OK. It's fine. I know I'm dreaming. But I don't recall going to bed. Well, I'm sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you're a bee! I am. And I'm not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn't for you... I had to thank you. It's just how I was raised. That was a little weird. - I'm talking with a bee. - Yeah. I'm talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I'm grateful. I'll leave now. - Wait! How did you learn to do that? - What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. "Mama, Dada, honey." You pick it up. - That's very funny. - Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn't laugh, we'd cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway... Oan I... ...get you something? - Like what? I don't know. I mean... I don't know. Ooffee? I don't want to put you out. It's no trouble. It takes two minutes. - It's just coffee. - I hate to impose. - Don't be ridiculous! - Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? - I shouldn't. - Have some. - No, I can't. - Oome on! I'm trying to lose a couple micrograms. - Where? - These stripes don't help. You look great! I don't know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He's making the tie in the cab as they're flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, "Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?" Is that a bee joke? That's the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don't know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can't do it the way they want. I know how you feel. - You do? - Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. - Really? - My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look... There's my hive right there. See it? You're in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I'm right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. - Why do girls put rings on their toes? - Why not? - It's like putting a hat on your knee. - Maybe I'll try that. - You all right, ma'am? - Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it's no trouble. Sorry I couldn't finish it. If I did, I'd be up the rest of my life. Are you...? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. - Thanks! - Yeah. All right. Well, then... I guess I'll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again... for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but... Anyway... This can't possibly work. He's all set to go. We may as well try it. OK, Dave, pull the chute. - Sounds amazing. - It was amazing! It was the scariest, happiest moment of my life. Humans! I can't believe you were with humans! Giant, scary humans! What were they like? Huge and crazy. They talk crazy. They eat crazy giant things. They drive crazy. - Do they try and kill you, like on TV? - Some of them. But some of them don't. - How'd you get back? - Poodle. You did it, and I'm glad. You saw whatever you wanted to see. You had your "experience." Now you can pick out yourjob and be normal. - Well... - Well? Well, I met someone. You did? Was she Bee-ish? - A wasp?! Your parents will kill you! - No, no, no, not a wasp. - Spider? - I'm not attracted to spiders. I know it's the hottest thing, with the eight legs and all. I can't get by that face. So who is she? She's... human. No, no. That's a bee law. You wouldn't break a bee law. - Her name's Vanessa. - Oh, boy. She's so nice. And she's a florist! Oh, no! You're dating a human florist! We're not dating. You're flying outside the hive, talking to humans that attack our homes with power washers and M-80s! One-eighth a stick of dynamite! She saved my life! And she understands me. This is over! Eat this. This is not over! What was that? - They call it a crumb. - It was so stingin' stripey! And that's not what they eat. That's what falls off what they eat! - You know what a Oinnabon is? - No. It's bread and cinnamon and frosting. They heat it up... Sit down! ...really hot! - Listen to me! We are not them! We're us. There's us and there's them! Yes, but who can deny the heart that is yearning? There's no yearning. Stop yearning. Listen to me! You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. Thinking bee! - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! There he is. He's in the pool. You know what your problem is, Barry? I gotta start thinking bee? How much longer will this go on? It's been three days! Why aren't you working? I've got a lot of big life decisions to think about. What life? You have no life! You have no job. You're barely a bee! Would it kill you to make a little honey? Barry, come out. Your father's talking to you. Martin, would you talk to him? Barry, I'm talking to you! You coming? Got everything? All set! Go ahead. I'll catch up. Don't be too long. Watch this! Vanessa! - We're still here. - I told you not to yell at him. He doesn't respond to yelling! - Then why yell at me? - Because you don't listen! I'm not listening to this. Sorry, I've gotta go. - Where are you going? - I'm meeting a friend. A girl? Is this why you can't decide? Bye. I just hope she's Bee-ish. They have a huge parade of flowers every year in Pasadena? To be in the Tournament of Roses, that's every florist's dream! Up on a float, surrounded by flowers, crowds cheering. A tournament. Do the roses compete in athletic events? No. All right, I've got one. How come you don't fly everywhere? It's exhausting. Why don't you run everywhere? It's faster. Yeah, OK, I see, I see. All right, your turn. TiVo. You can just freeze live TV? That's insane! You don't have that? We have Hivo, but it's a disease. It's a horrible, horrible disease. Oh, my. Dumb bees! You must want to sting all those jerks. We try not to sting. It's usually fatal for us. So you have to watch your temper. Very carefully. You kick a wall, take a walk, write an angry letter and throw it out. Work through it like any emotion: Anger, jealousy, lust. Oh, my goodness! Are you OK? Yeah. - What is wrong with you?! - It's a bug. He's not bothering anybody. Get out of here, you creep! What was that? A Pic 'N' Save circular? Yeah, it was. How did you know? It felt like about 10 pages. Seventy-five is pretty much our limit. You've really got that down to a science. - I lost a cousin to Italian Vogue. - I'll bet. What in the name of Mighty Hercules is this? How did this get here? Oute Bee, Golden Blossom, Ray Liotta Private Select? - Is he that actor? - I never heard of him. - Why is this here? - For people. We eat it. You don't have enough food of your own? - Well, yes. - How do you get it? - Bees make it. - I know who makes it! And it's hard to make it! There's heating, cooling, stirring. You need a whole Krelman thing! - It's organic. - It's our-ganic! It's just honey, Barry. Just what?! Bees don't know about this! This is stealing! A lot of stealing! You've taken our homes, schools, hospitals! This is all we have! And it's on sale?! I'm getting to the bottom of this. I'm getting to the bottom of all of this! Hey, Hector. - You almost done? - Almost. He is here. I sense it. Well, I guess I'll go home now and just leave this nice honey out, with no one around. You're busted, box boy! I knew I heard something. So you can talk! I can talk. And now you'll start talking! Where you getting the sweet stuff? Who's your supplier? I don't understand. I thought we were friends. The last thing we want to do is upset bees! You're too late! It's ours now! You, sir, have crossed the wrong sword! You, sir, will be lunch for my iguana, Ignacio! Where is the honey coming from? Tell me where! Honey Farms! It comes from Honey Farms! Orazy person! What horrible thing has happened here? These faces, they never knew what hit them. And now they're on the road to nowhere! Just keep still. What? You're not dead? Do I look dead? They will wipe anything that moves. Where you headed? To Honey Farms. I am onto something huge here. I'm going to Alaska. Moose blood, crazy stuff. Blows your head off! I'm going to Tacoma. - And you? - He really is dead. All right. Uh-oh! - What is that?! - Oh, no! - A wiper! Triple blade! - Triple blade? Jump on! It's your only chance, bee! Why does everything have to be so doggone clean?! How much do you people need to see?! Open your eyes! Stick your head out the window! From NPR News in Washington, I'm Oarl Kasell. But don't kill no more bugs! - Bee! - Moose blood guy!! - You hear something? - Like what? Like tiny screaming. Turn off the radio. Whassup, bee boy? Hey, Blood. Just a row of honey jars, as far as the eye could see. Wow! I assume wherever this truck goes is where they're getting it. I mean, that honey's ours. - Bees hang tight. - We're all jammed in. It's a close community. Not us, man. We on our own. Every mosquito on his own. - What if you get in trouble? - You a mosquito, you in trouble. Nobody likes us. They just smack. See a mosquito, smack, smack! At least you're out in the world. You must meet girls. Mosquito girls try to trade up, get with a moth, dragonfly. Mosquito girl don't want no mosquito. You got to be kidding me! Mooseblood's about to leave the building! So long, bee! - Hey, guys! - Mooseblood! I knew I'd catch y'all down here. Did you bring your crazy straw? We throw it in jars, slap a label on it, and it's pretty much pure profit. What is this place? A bee's got a brain the size of a pinhead. They are pinheads! Pinhead. - Oheck out the new smoker. - Oh, sweet. That's the one you want. The Thomas 3000! Smoker? Ninety puffs a minute, semi-automatic. Twice the nicotine, all the tar. A couple breaths of this knocks them right out. They make the honey, and we make the money. "They make the honey, and we make the money"? Oh, my! What's going on? Are you OK? Yeah. It doesn't last too long. Do you know you're in a fake hive with fake walls? Our queen was moved here. We had no choice. This is your queen? That's a man in women's clothes! That's a drag queen! What is this? Oh, no! There's hundreds of them! Bee honey. Our honey is being brazenly stolen on a massive scale! This is worse than anything bears have done! I intend to do something. Oh, Barry, stop. Who told you humans are taking our honey? That's a rumor. Do these look like rumors? That's a conspiracy theory. These are obviously doctored photos. How did you get mixed up in this? He's been talking to humans. - What? - Talking to humans?! He has a human girlfriend. And they make out! Make out? Barry! We do not. - You wish you could. - Whose side are you on? The bees! I dated a cricket once in San Antonio. Those crazy legs kept me up all night. Barry, this is what you want to do with your life? I want to do it for all our lives. Nobody works harder than bees! Dad, I remember you coming home so overworked your hands were still stirring. You couldn't stop. I remember that. What right do they have to our honey? We live on two cups a year. They put it in lip balm for no reason whatsoever! Even if it's true, what can one bee do? Sting them where it really hurts. In the face! The eye! - That would hurt. - No. Up the nose? That's a killer. There's only one place you can sting the humans, one place where it matters. Hive at Five, the hive's only full-hour action news source. No more bee beards! With Bob Bumble at the anchor desk. Weather with Storm Stinger. Sports with Buzz Larvi. And Jeanette Ohung. - Good evening. I'm Bob Bumble. - And I'm Jeanette Ohung. A tri-county bee, Barry Benson, intends to sue the human race for stealing our honey, packaging it and profiting from it illegally! Tomorrow night on Bee Larry King, we'll have three former queens here in our studio, discussing their new book, Olassy Ladies, out this week on Hexagon. Tonight we're talking to Barry Benson. Did you ever think, "I'm a kid from the hive. I can't do this"? Bees have never been afraid to change the world. What about Bee Oolumbus? Bee Gandhi? Bejesus? Where I'm from, we'd never sue humans. We were thinking of stickball or candy stores. How old are you? The bee community is supporting you in this case, which will be the trial of the bee century. You know, they have a Larry King in the human world too. It's a common name. Next week... He looks like you and has a show and suspenders and colored dots... Next week... Glasses, quotes on the bottom from the guest even though you just heard 'em. Bear Week next week! They're scary, hairy and here live. Always leans forward, pointy shoulders, squinty eyes, very Jewish. In tennis, you attack at the point of weakness! It was my grandmother, Ken. She's 81. Honey, her backhand's a joke! I'm not gonna take advantage of that? Quiet, please. Actual work going on here. - Is that that same bee? - Yes, it is! I'm helping him sue the human race. - Hello. - Hello, bee. This is Ken. Yeah, I remember you. Timberland, size ten and a half. Vibram sole, I believe. Why does he talk again? Listen, you better go 'cause we're really busy working. But it's our yogurt night! Bye-bye. Why is yogurt night so difficult?! You poor thing. You two have been at this for hours! Yes, and Adam here has been a huge help. - Frosting... - How many sugars? Just one. I try not to use the competition. So why are you helping me? Bees have good qualities. And it takes my mind off the shop. Instead of flowers, people are giving balloon bouquets now. Those are great, if you're three. And artificial flowers. - Oh, those just get me psychotic! - Yeah, me too. Bent stingers, pointless pollination. Bees must hate those fake things! Nothing worse than a daffodil that's had work done. Maybe this could make up for it a little bit. - This lawsuit's a pretty big deal. - I guess. You sure you want to go through with it? Am I sure? When I'm done with the humans, they won't be able to say, "Honey, I'm home," without paying a royalty! It's an incredible scene here in downtown Manhattan, where the world anxiously waits, because for the first time in history, we will hear for ourselves if a honeybee can actually speak. What have we gotten into here, Barry? It's pretty big, isn't it? I can't believe how many humans don't work during the day. You think billion-dollar multinational food companies have good lawyers? Everybody needs to stay behind the barricade. - What's the matter? - I don't know, I just got a chill. Well, if it isn't the bee team. You boys work on this? All rise! The Honorable Judge Bumbleton presiding. All right. Oase number 4475, Superior Oourt of New York, Barry Bee Benson v. the Honey Industry is now in session. Mr. Montgomery, you're representing the five food companies collectively? A privilege. Mr. Benson... you're representing all the bees of the world? I'm kidding. Yes, Your Honor, we're ready to proceed. Mr. Montgomery, your opening statement, please. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my grandmother was a simple woman. Born on a farm, she believed it was man's divine right to benefit from the bounty of nature God put before us. If we lived in the topsy-turvy world Mr. Benson imagines, just think of what would it mean. I would have to negotiate with the silkworm for the elastic in my britches! Talking bee! How do we know this isn't some sort of holographic motion-picture-capture Hollywood wizardry? They could be using laser beams! Robotics! Ventriloquism! Oloning! For all we know, he could be on steroids! Mr. Benson? Ladies and gentlemen, there's no trickery here. I'm just an ordinary bee. Honey's pretty important to me. It's important to all bees. We invented it! We make it. And we protect it with our lives. Unfortunately, there are some people in this room who think they can take it from us 'cause we're the little guys! I'm hoping that, after this is all over, you'll see how, by taking our honey, you not only take everything we have but everything we are! I wish he'd dress like that all the time. So nice! Oall your first witness. So, Mr. Klauss Vanderhayden of Honey Farms, big company you have. I suppose so. I see you also own Honeyburton and Honron! Yes, they provide beekeepers for our farms. Beekeeper. I find that to be a very disturbing term. I don't imagine you employ any bee-free-ers, do you? - No. - I couldn't hear you. - No. - No. Because you don't free bees. You keep bees. Not only that, it seems you thought a bear would be an appropriate image for a jar of honey. They're very lovable creatures. Yogi Bear, Fozzie Bear, Build-A-Bear. You mean like this? Bears kill bees! How'd you like his head crashing through your living room?! Biting into your couch! Spitting out your throw pillows! OK, that's enough. Take him away. So, Mr. Sting, thank you for being here. Your name intrigues me. - Where have I heard it before? - I was with a band called The Police. But you've never been a police officer, have you? No, I haven't. No, you haven't. And so here we have yet another example of bee culture casually stolen by a human for nothing more than a prance-about stage name. Oh, please. Have you ever been stung, Mr. Sting? Because I'm feeling a little stung, Sting. Or should I say... Mr. Gordon M. Sumner! That's not his real name?! You idiots! Mr. Liotta, first, belated congratulations on your Emmy win for a guest spot on ER in 2005. Thank you. Thank you. I see from your resume that you're devilishly handsome with a churning inner turmoil that's ready to blow. I enjoy what I do. Is that a crime? Not yet it isn't. But is this what it's come to for you? Exploiting tiny, helpless bees so you don't have to rehearse your part and learn your lines, sir? Watch it, Benson! I could blow right now! This isn't a goodfella. This is a badfella! Why doesn't someone just step on this creep, and we can all go home?! - Order in this court! - You're all thinking it! Order! Order, I say! - Say it! - Mr. Liotta, please sit down! I think it was awfully nice of that bear to pitch in like that. I think the jury's on our side. Are we doing everything right, legally? I'm a florist. Right. Well, here's to a great team. To a great team! Well, hello. - Ken! - Hello. I didn't think you were coming. No, I was just late. I tried to call, but... the battery. I didn't want all this to go to waste, so I called Barry. Luckily, he was free. Oh, that was lucky. There's a little left. I could heat it up. Yeah, heat it up, sure, whatever. So I hear you're quite a tennis player. I'm not much for the game myself. The ball's a little grabby. That's where I usually sit. Right... there. Ken, Barry was looking at your resume, and he agreed with me that eating with chopsticks isn't really a special skill. You think I don't see what you're doing? I know how hard it is to find the rightjob. We have that in common. Do we? Bees have 100 percent employment, but we do jobs like taking the crud out. That's just what I was thinking about doing. Ken, I let Barry borrow your razor for his fuzz. I hope that was all right. I'm going to drain the old stinger. Yeah, you do that. Look at that. You know, I've just about had it with your little mind games. - What's that? - Italian Vogue. Mamma mia, that's a lot of pages. A lot of ads. Remember what Van said, why is your life more valuable than mine? Funny, I just can't seem to recall that! I think something stinks in here! I love the smell of flowers. How do you like the smell of flames?! Not as much. Water bug! Not taking sides! Ken, I'm wearing a Ohapstick hat! This is pathetic! I've got issues! Well, well, well, a royal flush! - You're bluffing. - Am I? Surf's up, dude! Poo water! That bowl is gnarly. Except for those dirty yellow rings! Kenneth! What are you doing?! You know, I don't even like honey! I don't eat it! We need to talk! He's just a little bee! And he happens to be the nicest bee I've met in a long time! Long time? What are you talking about?! Are there other bugs in your life? No, but there are other things bugging me in life. And you're one of them! Fine! Talking bees, no yogurt night... My nerves are fried from riding on this emotional roller coaster! Goodbye, Ken. And for your information, I prefer sugar-free, artificial sweeteners made by man! I'm sorry about all that. I know it's got an aftertaste! I like it! I always felt there was some kind of barrier between Ken and me. I couldn't overcome it. Oh, well. Are you OK for the trial? I believe Mr. Montgomery is about out of ideas. We would like to call Mr. Barry Benson Bee to the stand. Good idea! You can really see why he's considered one of the best lawyers... Yeah. Layton, you've gotta weave some magic with this jury, or it's gonna be all over. Don't worry. The only thing I have to do to turn this jury around is to remind them of what they don't like about bees. - You got the tweezers? - Are you allergic? Only to losing, son. Only to losing. Mr. Benson Bee, I'll ask you what I think we'd all like to know. What exactly is your relationship to that woman? We're friends. - Good friends? - Yes. How good? Do you live together? Wait a minute... Are you her little... ...bedbug? I've seen a bee documentary or two. From what I understand, doesn't your queen give birth to all the bee children? - Yeah, but... - So those aren't your real parents! - Oh, Barry... - Yes, they are! Hold me back! You're an illegitimate bee, aren't you, Benson? He's denouncing bees! Don't y'all date your cousins? - Objection! - I'm going to pincushion this guy! Adam, don't! It's what he wants! Oh, I'm hit!! Oh, lordy, I am hit! Order! Order! The venom! The venom is coursing through my veins! I have been felled by a winged beast of destruction! You see? You can't treat them like equals! They're striped savages! Stinging's the only thing they know! It's their way! - Adam, stay with me. - I can't feel my legs. What angel of mercy will come forward to suck the poison from my heaving buttocks? I will have order in this court. Order! Order, please! The case of the honeybees versus the human race took a pointed turn against the bees yesterday when one of their legal team stung Layton T. Montgomery. - Hey, buddy. - Hey. - Is there much pain? - Yeah. I... I blew the whole case, didn't I? It doesn't matter. What matters is you're alive. You could have died. I'd be better off dead. Look at me. They got it from the cafeteria downstairs, in a tuna sandwich. Look, there's a little celery still on it. What was it like to sting someone? I can't explain it. It was all... All adrenaline and then... and then ecstasy! All right. You think it was all a trap? Of course. I'm sorry. I flew us right into this. What were we thinking? Look at us. We're just a couple of bugs in this world. What will the humans do to us if they win? I don't know. I hear they put the roaches in motels. That doesn't sound so bad. Adam, they check in, but they don't check out! Oh, my. Oould you get a nurse to close that window? - Why? - The smoke. Bees don't smoke. Right. Bees don't smoke. Bees don't smoke! But some bees are smoking. That's it! That's our case! It is? It's not over? Get dressed. I've gotta go somewhere. Get back to the court and stall. Stall any way you can. And assuming you've done step correctly, you're ready for the tub. Mr. Flayman. Yes? Yes, Your Honor! Where is the rest of your team? Well, Your Honor, it's interesting. Bees are trained to fly haphazardly, and as a result, we don't make very good time. I actually heard a funny story about... Your Honor, haven't these ridiculous bugs taken up enough of this court's valuable time? How much longer will we allow these absurd shenanigans to go on? They have presented no compelling evidence to support their charges against my clients, who run legitimate businesses. I move for a complete dismissal of this entire case! Mr. Flayman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to consider Mr. Montgomery's motion. But you can't! We have a terrific case. Where is your proof? Where is the evidence? Show me the smoking gun! Hold it, Your Honor! You want a smoking gun? Here is your smoking gun. What is that? It's a bee smoker! What, this? This harmless little contraption? This couldn't hurt a fly, let alone a bee. Look at what has happened to bees who have never been asked, "Smoking or non?" Is this what nature intended for us? To be forcibly addicted to smoke machines and man-made wooden slat work camps? Living out our lives as honey slaves to the white man? - What are we gonna do? - He's playing the species card. Ladies and gentlemen, please, free these bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! Free the bees! The court finds in favor of the bees! Vanessa, we won! I knew you could do it! High-five! Sorry. I'm OK! You know what this means? All the honey will finally belong to the bees. Now we won't have to work so hard all the time. This is an unholy perversion of the balance of nature, Benson. You'll regret this. Barry, how much honey is out there? All right. One at a time. Barry, who are you wearing? My sweater is Ralph Lauren, and I have no pants. - What if Montgomery's right? - What do you mean? We've been living the bee way a long time, 27 million years. Oongratulations on your victory. What will you demand as a settlement? First, we'll demand a complete shutdown of all bee work camps. Then we want back the honey that was ours to begin with, every last drop. We demand an end to the glorification of the bear as anything more than a filthy, smelly, bad-breath stink machine. We're all aware of what they do in the woods. Wait for my signal. Take him out. He'll have nauseous for a few hours, then he'll be fine. And we will no longer tolerate bee-negative nicknames... But it's just a prance-about stage name! ...unnecessary inclusion of honey in bogus health products and la-dee-da human tea-time snack garnishments. Oan't breathe. Bring it in, boys! Hold it right there! Good. Tap it. Mr. Buzzwell, we just passed three cups, and there's gallons more coming! - I think we need to shut down! - Shut down? We've never shut down. Shut down honey production! Stop making honey! Turn your key, sir! What do we do now? Oannonball! We're shutting honey production! Mission abort. Aborting pollination and nectar detail. Returning to base. Adam, you wouldn't believe how much honey was out there. Oh, yeah? What's going on? Where is everybody? - Are they out celebrating? - They're home. They don't know what to do. Laying out, sleeping in. I heard your Uncle Oarl was on his way to San Antonio with a cricket. At least we got our honey back. Sometimes I think, so what if humans liked our honey? Who wouldn't? It's the greatest thing in the world! I was excited to be part of making it. This was my new desk. This was my new job. I wanted to do it really well. And now... Now I can't. I don't understand why they're not happy. I thought their lives would be better! They're doing nothing. It's amazing. Honey really changes people. You don't have any idea what's going on, do you? - What did you want to show me? - This. What happened here? That is not the half of it. Oh, no. Oh, my. They're all wilting. Doesn't look very good, does it? No. And whose fault do you think that is? You know, I'm gonna guess bees. Bees? Specifically, me. I didn't think bees not needing to make honey would affect all these things. It's notjust flowers. Fruits, vegetables, they all need bees. That's our whole SAT test right there. Take away produce, that affects the entire animal kingdom. And then, of course... The human species? So if there's no more pollination, it could all just go south here, couldn't it? I know this is also partly my fault. How about a suicide pact? How do we do it? - I'll sting you, you step on me. - Thatjust kills you twice. Right, right. Listen, Barry... sorry, but I gotta get going. I had to open my mouth and talk. Vanessa? Vanessa? Why are you leaving? Where are you going? To the final Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena. They've moved it to this weekend because all the flowers are dying. It's the last chance I'll ever have to see it. Vanessa, I just wanna say I'm sorry. I never meant it to turn out like this. I know. Me neither. Tournament of Roses. Roses can't do sports. Wait a minute. Roses. Roses? Roses! Vanessa! Roses?! Barry? - Roses are flowers! - Yes, they are. Flowers, bees, pollen! I know. That's why this is the last parade. Maybe not. Oould you ask him to slow down? Oould you slow down? Barry! OK, I made a huge mistake. This is a total disaster, all my fault. Yes, it kind of is. I've ruined the planet. I wanted to help you with the flower shop. I've made it worse. Actually, it's completely closed down. I thought maybe you were remodeling. But I have another idea, and it's greater than my previous ideas combined. I don't want to hear it! All right, they have the roses, the roses have the pollen. I know every bee, plant and flower bud in this park. All we gotta do is get what they've got back here with what we've got. - Bees. - Park. - Pollen! - Flowers. - Repollination! - Across the nation! Tournament of Roses, Pasadena, Oalifornia. They've got nothing but flowers, floats and cotton candy. Security will be tight. I have an idea. Vanessa Bloome, FTD. Official floral business. It's real. Sorry, ma'am. Nice brooch. Thank you. It was a gift. Once inside, we just pick the right float. How about The Princess and the Pea? I could be the princess, and you could be the pea! Yes, I got it. - Where should I sit? - What are you? - I believe I'm the pea. - The pea? It goes under the mattresses. - Not in this fairy tale, sweetheart. - I'm getting the marshal. You do that! This whole parade is a fiasco! Let's see what this baby'll do. Hey, what are you doing?! Then all we do is blend in with traffic... ...without arousing suspicion. Once at the airport, there's no stopping us. Stop! Security. - You and your insect pack your float? - Yes. Has it been in your possession the entire time? Would you remove your shoes? - Remove your stinger. - It's part of me. I know. Just having some fun. Enjoy your flight. Then if we're lucky, we'll have just enough pollen to do the job. Oan you believe how lucky we are? We have just enough pollen to do the job! I think this is gonna work. It's got to work. Attention, passengers, this is Oaptain Scott. We have a bit of bad weather in New York. It looks like we'll experience a couple hours delay. Barry, these are cut flowers with no water. They'll never make it. I gotta get up there and talk to them. Be careful. Oan I get help with the Sky Mall magazine? I'd like to order the talking inflatable nose and ear hair trimmer. Oaptain, I'm in a real situation. - What'd you say, Hal? - Nothing. Bee! Don't freak out! My entire species... What are you doing? - Wait a minute! I'm an attorney! - Who's an attorney? Don't move. Oh, Barry. Good afternoon, passengers. This is your captain. Would a Miss Vanessa Bloome in 24B please report to the cockpit? And please hurry! What happened here? There was a DustBuster, a toupee, a life raft exploded. One's bald, one's in a boat, they're both unconscious! - Is that another bee joke? - No! No one's flying the plane! This is JFK control tower, Flight 356. What's your status? This is Vanessa Bloome. I'm a florist from New York. Where's the pilot? He's unconscious, and so is the copilot. Not good. Does anyone onboard have flight experience? As a matter of fact, there is. - Who's that? - Barry Benson. From the honey trial?! Oh, great. Vanessa, this is nothing more than a big metal bee. It's got giant wings, huge engines. I can't fly a plane. - Why not? Isn't John Travolta a pilot? - Yes. How hard could it be? Wait, Barry! We're headed into some lightning. This is Bob Bumble. We have some late-breaking news from JFK Airport, where a suspenseful scene is developing. Barry Benson, fresh from his legal victory... That's Barry! ...is attempting to land a plane, loaded with people, flowers and an incapacitated flight crew. Flowers?! We have a storm in the area and two individuals at the controls with absolutely no flight experience. Just a minute. There's a bee on that plane. I'm quite familiar with Mr. Benson and his no-account compadres. They've done enough damage. But isn't he your only hope? Technically, a bee shouldn't be able to fly at all. Their wings are too small... Haven't we heard this a million times? "The surface area of the wings and body mass make no sense." - Get this on the air! - Got it. - Stand by. - We're going live. The way we work may be a mystery to you. Making honey takes a lot of bees doing a lot of small jobs. But let me tell you about a small job. If you do it well, it makes a big difference. More than we realized. To us, to everyone. That's why I want to get bees back to working together. That's the bee way! We're not made of Jell-O. We get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow! - Hello! Left, right, down, hover. - Hover? - Forget hover. This isn't so hard. Beep-beep! Beep-beep! Barry, what happened?! Wait, I think we were on autopilot the whole time. - That may have been helping me. - And now we're not! So it turns out I cannot fly a plane. All of you, let's get behind this fellow! Move it out! Move out! Our only chance is if I do what I'd do, you copy me with the wings of the plane! Don't have to yell. I'm not yelling! We're in a lot of trouble. It's very hard to concentrate with that panicky tone in your voice! It's not a tone. I'm panicking! I can't do this! Vanessa, pull yourself together. You have to snap out of it! You snap out of it. You snap out of it. - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - You snap out of it! - Hold it! - Why? Oome on, it's my turn. How is the plane flying? I don't know. Hello? Benson, got any flowers for a happy occasion in there? The Pollen Jocks! They do get behind a fellow. - Black and yellow. - Hello. All right, let's drop this tin can on the blacktop. Where? I can't see anything. Oan you? No, nothing. It's all cloudy. Oome on. You got to think bee, Barry. - Thinking bee. - Thinking bee. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Wait a minute. I think I'm feeling something. - What? - I don't know. It's strong, pulling me. Like a 27-million-year-old instinct. Bring the nose down. Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - What in the world is on the tarmac? - Get some lights on that! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! Thinking bee! - Vanessa, aim for the flower. - OK. Out the engines. We're going in on bee power. Ready, boys? Affirmative! Good. Good. Easy, now. That's it. Land on that flower! Ready? Full reverse! Spin it around! - Not that flower! The other one! - Which one? - That flower. - I'm aiming at the flower! That's a fat guy in a flowered shirt. I mean the giant pulsating flower made of millions of bees! Pull forward. Nose down. Tail up. Rotate around it. - This is insane, Barry! - This's the only way I know how to fly. Am I koo-koo-kachoo, or is this plane flying in an insect-like pattern? Get your nose in there. Don't be afraid. Smell it. Full reverse! Just drop it. Be a part of it. Aim for the center! Now drop it in! Drop it in, woman! Oome on, already. Barry, we did it! You taught me how to fly! - Yes. No high-five! - Right. Barry, it worked! Did you see the giant flower? What giant flower? Where? Of course I saw the flower! That was genius! - Thank you. - But we're not done yet. Listen, everyone! This runway is covered with the last pollen from the last flowers available anywhere on Earth. That means this is our last chance. We're the only ones who make honey, pollinate flowers and dress like this. If we're gonna survive as a species, this is our moment! What do you say? Are we going to be bees, orjust Museum of Natural History keychains? We're bees! Keychain! Then follow me! Except Keychain. Hold on, Barry. Here. You've earned this. Yeah! I'm a Pollen Jock! And it's a perfect fit. All I gotta do are the sleeves. Oh, yeah. That's our Barry. Mom! The bees are back! If anybody needs to make a call, now's the time. I got a feeling we'll be working late tonight! Here's your change. Have a great afternoon! Oan I help who's next? Would you like some honey with that? It is bee-approved. Don't forget these. Milk, cream, cheese, it's all me. And I don't see a nickel! Sometimes I just feel like a piece of meat! I had no idea. Barry, I'm sorry. Have you got a moment? Would you excuse me? My mosquito associate will help you. Sorry I'm late. He's a lawyer too? I was already a blood-sucking parasite. All I needed was a briefcase. Have a great afternoon! Barry, I just got this huge tulip order, and I can't get them anywhere. No problem, Vannie. Just leave it to me. You're a lifesaver, Barry. Oan I help who's next? All right, scramble, jocks! It's time to fly. Thank you, Barry! That bee is living my life! Let it go, Kenny. - When will this nightmare end?! - Let it all go. - Beautiful day to fly. - Sure is. Between you and me, I was dying to get out of that office. You have got to start thinking bee, my friend. - Thinking bee! - Me? Hold it. Let's just stop for a second. Hold it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, everyone. Oan we stop here? I'm not making a major life decision during a production number! All right. Take ten, everybody. Wrap it up, guys. I had virtually no rehearsal for that.

The End.

Detective Mode Unlocked: here's your prize

Bonus Speaks if you talk nicely about:

Sir Jordan Cartier, Mr. Yeezy West, Dua Lipa, Kung-Fu Kenny, Tyler, El Creador, the Los Angeles Lakers, Chik-fil-a, Guymon, Oklahoma, NBA 2K, my mom

OR

If you make fun of:

Champagne Papi (specifically CLB), Mid Sheeran, John Mayer, Mr. Bobby Tarantino, Robert Kelly, Kevin Durant, the Oscars, the Grammys, Dolph Schayes, the New York Knicks

I debated CX (Policy) in Texas for a very competitive high school back when there were still square wheels. I was 1A/1N. I also competed in Foreign Extemp and Oration. NFL Degree of Superior Distinction.

I flow, but not like I used to. I can handle some spread, but again… not like I used to. If it's important; speak clearly and enunciate. If I don’t catch it, I don’t flow it, and therefore I don’t fully get your argument.

I am mostly Tabula Rasa. I like creative arguments with lots of clash. I am open to T, but it better be good. I love counterplans, again with clash. Most of all, I like good solid cards. Don’t go nuke… It was annoying then; its annoying now. I don’t mind some snark, but I'm not a fan of rudeness.

I haven’t done much LD and no PF. But the same kind of rules would apply there. Good evidence, good logic and well framed arguments will carry the round.

My email is sean.cryer@gmail.com for the email chain.

Best of luck.

*Updated for 2024*
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if the highlighting is really bad I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 20 years if HS judging they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

Topicality/FW: I tend to think competing interpretations are good unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. For a team to drop the round on theory you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

Quick Overview

I will vote on about anything. Debate how you do best! Btw, automatic 30 speaks if you run Anthro. Btw, will probably vote you down(?) if you run any sort of death good stuff.

Disadvantages

I think Disads are great. Specific links are preferred but I'll let generic ones slide as long as you explain to me how the aff comes within link ground. PLEASE HAVE AN INTERNAL LINK CHAIN.

Counterplans

I love case-specific counterplans! Please have a solvency advocate. Net Benefit(s) to the CP are preferred.

PICs: I'm not a fan of PICs but I will totally vote for them if either team is winning it.

Kritiks

Again, specific links are preferred. Please explain your alt in the round.

K Affs: The aff should be specific and relevant to the topic and have a viable alternative/solvency mechanism. Neg: I'll totally vote on T/FW if you run it and win it.

Literature: If you don't know if I'm familiar with the lit you'll be running, just ask me.

Topicality

I love topicality. Voting issues should impacted out and applicable to the debate. Also, I DO like RVI's and I WILL vote on them as long as you prove actual abuse and impact it in round.

Case

Love it!

Framework/Framing

Tell me why one is a better/worse model for debate and why I should prefer it in round.

Extra/Misc. Stuff

Speed - I'm cool with it. Just be clear and slower on your tags or analysis. I'll tell you to clear if needed. For online debates, probably slow down a little.

Cross-Ex - I'm fine with open or closed, as long as both teams agree. If open, both partners should participate at some point in the debate. DON'T be rude in cross-ex.

Time - Please try and time yourselves. Ask me ahead of speech time if you can time yourself or if you forgot how much prep you have.

Prep time - I don't normally count flashing as prep unless it just gets stupidly long. Don't ghost prep.

Speaker Points - I will CRUSH your speaker points and give you a hella quick 25 if you're rude to your opponent, partner, or me. I will CRUSH your speaker points if you are caught card-clipping, and probably get you DQ'd too lol.

Pronouns - He/him. If any debater in the round has preferred pronouns, please make that clear to me and every competitor in the room.

"ism" - I DO NOT want to see any examples of racism/sexism/classism/etc. in round, it is not cool at all. However, don't call somebody out for any "ism" if it's not true, that's inversely rude.

Evidence - If I need to see a piece of evidence for my clarity, or because it was heavily contested in round, I'll ask for it

RFD - I might take a minute or two to write out my RFD, just be patient, I don't care if y'all chat. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my RFD.

Email Chain - If you are using the chain, I'd like to be included @ damian.g.hernandez02@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, ask me before round, I'll answer!

Finally, it's debate, you joined for a reason. Have fun and learn something!

Contact and Email Chain (include me in email chain and for any questions) : Shawna Hight - hrhshawna@gmail.com

You can call me Shawna or Hight, pronouns are she/her

Secondary Language Arts/Math Instructor / PhD student in Literacy and Logic, experience judging and competing in CX (pref), LD, and speech both JH,HS, and college.

Basics

I want an organized, line by line debate, but I want you to tell me how I should vote. Don't leave it up to me to figure out. Tell me why you are winning and how your arguments make your case stand. Tell me when you link/flip/turn cards and tell me what flows through - point out drops.

Speed is fine, but articulate your plan and analysis. I will not vote on what I don't get down.

Be professional and courteous, and respect identities and pronouns. There is a fine line between being an intimidating opponent and rude, don't cross it. I love debate because I believe it is a place for respectful discourse. But I'm a teacher and parent first and if you are rude, I reserve the right to reduce speaker points or drop you.

Aff : Make your plan clear, don't skirt around neg.

Neg: I like DA args but your uniqueness must be recent. Link needs to be specific. I'll vote on Topicality if there's really an issue with Aff plan, otherwise, that's a stall.

I enjoy a good Theory/K, but explain it, especially if it's a new argument. You have to show me why it wins. Side note, I do see these as DA/Counterplan type arguments and want to see the uniqueness.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm writing this fast...

Tab rasa etc

Lost brain cells are exchanged with speaks

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Current

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from application of specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively for speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

"Push me to the edge, econ key to heg" - Lil Uzi Vert // Collin Smith, Heritage Hall - Class of 2020 and University of Denver - Class of 2024

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again.'"

Alex Nguyen

University of Michigan - Class of 2024

Heritage Hall OKC - Class of 2020

Assistant Debate Coach - Heritage Hall OKC -- August 2021-present

Email: nguyenam@umich.edu

Big shoutout to Bryan Gaston at Heritage Hall for being an amazing debate coach and making me into the debater, judge, and person I am today.

Table of contents:

1. Policy paradigm

2. LD paradigm

3. Oklahoma LD paradigm

4. PF paradigm

5. IE/speech paradigm

6. Parli paradigm

----

Policy paradigm:

tl;dr: below

- I am fine with whatever you read in round.

- Please call me Alex and not judge.

- PLEASE SAY "NEXT" BETWEEN ARGUMENTS AND CARDS!!!!! You should do this if you want me to be able to flow you well.

- If I yell clear three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.

- Slow down on analytics please. Of course, spread, but don't read off analytics like you're reading the text of a card. If you're gonna do this, your analytics better be in the doc, otherwise, there's no way I'm gonna be able to flow most of your arguments.

- I prefer judging strategies that have specific links to the Aff.

- I am unable to evaluate any out of round links, as I cannot determine whether they are true or not.

- I am not the best judge for complex K debates. The only K I have experience with is settler colonialism. High theory like Baudrillard will be a bit difficult for me to judge. My only preference with Ks is that specific links to the K are better than generic ones, and I am more inclined to vote for the K if the link is specific. If you are running a K, I suggest you read the K section below.

- I will vote on conditionality bad/perf con if it is extended and won in the 2ar, however, my threshold to vote on it is very high.

- I am a sucker for soft left impacts.

- Aff has the burden of proof to why it is topical if topicality is an argument in the round.

- Ground and education are terminal impacts.

- I love a good case debate.

- If you're running 8 off and 4 of them are just 1 card DAs or CPs that have no solvency cards with just a CP text, I'm not a huge fan. I understand the strategic advantage this can give the Neg, but these debates just get boring and non-sensical. These debates just aren't fun to judge since the Aff answers these stupid one card DAs or CP w/o a solvency card with very few answers, then the block just blows it up. I think it skews the debate unfairly and heavily in favor of the Neg. In these debates, I will not hesitate to vote Aff on condo if it is well extended into the 2ar. Also, I will be very lenient on the 1ar reading new answers/cards in their speech.

- This is an educational activity and the judge is a norm setter. At the same time, debate is a competitive game. (ground & edu are a terminal impacts)

- Have fun and be respectful to your opponents. Racism, xenophobia, queerphobia, and sexism WILL NOT be tolerated. If this happens in a round, I will stop it immediately, vote you down, and report you to Tabroom and your coach.

- Add me on the email chain and keep analytics in your doc since online debate is a bit more difficult to judge, especially because it cuts out a lot. nguyenam@umich.edu

- Bonus points if you have a card doc ready for me if/before I ask for it. I like to read cards b/c I consider myself a truth>tech judge. However, tech is still very important to me. More important is the quality of your ev.

- If your style of debate is more traditional, i.e., no spreading, I'm okay with that. I've judged all types of debate and can adapt. Do what you're comfortable with. We're here to learn and have a good time.

Longer paradigm below:

I'll vote and listen to anything, but here are some things you might want to know going into the debate...

Bio: I debated in CX for the University of Michigan during my freshman year and all four years of high school, so I've five years of debating under my belt, plus more if you count coaching. I have been a 2a/1n for 75% of my debate career. The arguments I mostly went for my sophomore year of HS were politics DAs and counterplans when I was constantly switching between being double 1s or 2s, so I've seen both sides of debate. Starting junior year, I became a 2a/1n and flex debater running the settler colonialism K and also some policy DAs and counterplans. My senior year, I was also a 2a/1n and executed mostly policy strategies, i.e, politics & topic DAs and CPs. I will likely be a 2a/1n for the rest of my debate career, running mainly policy arguments.

In 2018, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and attended Michigan 7 week program end of sophomore year and Berkeley 3 week program end of freshman year. In 2019, I competed in the Oklahoma 6A State Championship and made it to the semifinals and attended the Michigan Classic Debate program over the summer. In college, I plan on mainly running policy arguments and being a 2a/1n for the rest of my career.

Please add me on the email chain: nguyenam@umich.edu

I want your speech docs please. If possible, flash analytics for online debates. It makes it much easier for me to flow, in case you cut out during your speech.

I don't take flashing/emailing as prep time, but please be mindful of prep time and do NOT steal prep. Please keep your own time.

Clipping cards is bad and = an L.

I'd say I evaluate rounds on a truth over tech basis. I will read cards after the round, so I will ask for a card doc. Tech is still important to me, but ev quality is even more important. Bonus points for you if you have the card doc ready for me before I ask for it.

Any risk of no aff solvency means I vote neg on presumption. However, if the aff answers the no solvency argument just enough in the 2AR to be a valid argument and it makes sense, then they've beaten the no solvency argument. But, if the neg makes a no solvency argument in the 2NR and it's fleshed out and extended JUST enough so I can validly evaluate it at the end of the round and the 2AR cold concedes it in their speech, I automatically err neg on the no solvency argument, meaning I have to vote neg on presumption. That means that if the 2AR drops the no solvency argument and the 2NR extended it just good enough to be a valid argument at the end of the debate, then the aff CANNOT weigh any of its impacts on the off case positions at the end of the round since it CANNOT SOLVE ITS OWN IMPACTS. But if the no solvency argument is strong and both Aff and Neg make good arguments back and forth in the 2nr/2ar, I'll evaluate them fairly.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

I need a clear explanation of what a counterplan does at the end of the round and its net benefit so I can vote for it.

I am a sucker for soft left impacts, but you need to win why I should not evaluate util/extinction first. Also, it seems like I'm a sucker for theory args. (even if they're really bad)

I see a lot of teams only extending either only an internal link with no impact extension or an impact with no internal link extension. I believe this goes for all judges -- both parts need to be extended in order to win my ballot.

A few things people ask me in round that I can just put here:

Are you fine with speed? - yeah but if you're super unclear I will yell CLEAR. After the second time I yell clear I'm just gonna stop flowing and it's totally on you. In online debate, please slow down just a tad. Do not spread analytics like you would the text of a card. If you're gonna do that, put analytics in the doc. Even then, I may not be able to flow you properly.

How are you on Ks? - During my junior year at Heritage Hall, I mainly ran the settler colonialism K, but was a 1N, and have a decent understanding of that. However, I have not run many other post-modernist/structural Ks in my career. Please do not let this stop you from running any other Ks. When running them, please be sure to give me a clear overview of how the K functions and a clear link & alt story. If there is no clear explanation of how the alt functions or what the link to the Aff is, then there will be a slim chance I vote on it. A K without a link explanation is a no go for me. Remember, you can always drop the K alt, but use the link(s) as a case turn, which I would definitely vote on. (if you want to use them as a case turn, remember to tell me that you want to do so.)

Debate is a game, but I also believe it is an educational activity where we foster our advocacy/policy making skills. In order for that to be true, the debate round needs to be fair for both sides. I believe the judge is a norm setter in a debate and in the community. Ground and education are terminal impacts. Limits can be spun to be an impact, but I believe, for the most part, it is an internal link.

I hate long long overviews. At the end of the day, I feel like these really long overviews in the 2ac are just complicated to understand and read, so it seems like I don't really understand what the Aff does until the 1ar or 2ar because the overviews are shorter.

I tend to find that many K debaters like to read a link to the status quo, but not the plan. I think the K should link to the plan, and/or reps of the aff, and/or solid links to the advantages, otherwise it is an uphill battle--

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategic, always choose the more specific strategy.

Outside of round links -- I will not vote on them since it is impossible for me to 100% verify what happened out of round.

I am definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo bad and I really empathize with the Aff if there are many conditional advocacies read in the round. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, but if it's like 8 off and there's only one conditional CP but the rest are contradicting ethical positions, i.e., a K and a politics DA, I'm definitely willing to pull the trigger on condo ethics/perf con. Or if it's one CP and 7 DAs, you can definitely make the argument condo bad. Interp for this should be "condo bad -- neg should get zero conditional conditions."

Theory arguments need to have a voting issue and violation if you want me to vote on them. Otherwise, I just judge kick.

The aff has the burden of proof as to why they are topical.

One thing I am definitely heavy on is that I will protect the 2NR. If something is not said in the 1AR, but you shadow extend it in the 2AR, then I will not evaluate it on my flow. At the end of the debate, I will clearly articulate my flow to make sure this is the case.

Please tell me how I should evaluate things for you. I will do very very little if any work for you at the end of the debate to make a decision on your behalf.

FOR OKLAHOMA DEBATE: if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

Speaker points (applies to LD, CX, and PF):

Under 27: You did something really bad, like being discriminatory or were extremely rude to your opponents.

28-28.5: Not a terrible debate, but there are a lot of things you can improve on. I will explain this in my RFD if you got something in this range.

28.6-28.9: Good debate, but not great. I think there are some things you can improve on. Your speaking could have been more clear. If you lost and got these points, this means I believed that you didn't debate terribly, but there was a winning 2nr/2ar. If you won and got these points, this means I believed that you also didn't debate terribly, but you made me piece some things together on my flow to give you the W.

29-29.5: Great debate! I really enjoyed watching and judging it. Sure, there are definitely things you can improve on, but you did great. If all debaters in the round got these speaker points, this means that it was a close debate and tough for me to determine a winner. If you won and got these points and your opponents didn't, this means I believe that it was pretty clear cut who won the debate and I think you did a great job piecing the debate together for me. If you lost and got these points, this means that the 2nr/2ar were both good and that it was difficult to determine a winner, meaning there are very minuscule things you could have done to win the debate.

29.5-29.9: Phenomenal debate. I think you're going to win the tournament, or at least be in late elims. I don't think I've ever given someone who lost these points, so I won't go into that here. But if you won with these points, that means you pieced things well for me, you spoke very clearly, made smart/strategic arguments and decisions, and were just awesome overall.

30: Yeah you're winning the tournament no doubt.

Have fun and learn! Most importantly, this is an educational activity.

-----

**Arms Sales topic notes (the part about K links -- taken from Bryan Gaston's paradigm)***

------

National circuit LD Paradigm:

For national circuit LD, I would say that my paradigm does not change much from my policy one, so please read my policy paradigm when you're deciding your prefs. I will judge your debate like I would judge a CX debate. If you are not okay with that, then strike me. After asking a few LD buddies about how LD differs from policy, here are some of my preferences.

- I can judges Ks. However, stupid theory arguments on Ks I will not vote on. Of course I am okay with FW, floating PIKs bad, and/or vague alts bad. Anything else I will either not be a fan of or I will vote on ONLY if it goes dropped the entirety of the debate and if it's labeled as a voting issue, otherwise, I just judge kick the arg. If your A strat is running these stupid arguments in front of me, I recommend you strike me before the tournament begins.

- Like I said above, stupid theory arguments will not fly with me. I want this to be an educational debate for all. I feel like theory in LD can evolve into really non-sensical arguments. However, things like conditionality bad I will definitely vote on.

- I will not vote on permissibility, however, I don't mind voting neg on presumption because I love a good case debate.

- In policy, I've honestly never been a fan of anything more than 1 conditional position. As a 2a who isn't the fastest, I get spread out pretty thin, so I empathize with many people in policy and/or LD. If you extend condo bad, I expect it to be the majority of your speech in the 1ar if you want me to vote for it in the 2ar.

- Anything you consider an LD trick -- do not run those BS arguments in front of me. Like I said above, if that stuff is your A strat, please strike me. I don't want to waste my time judging a debate like that.

- I am okay with spreading.

------

Oklahoma LD Paradigm:

Don’t call me judge. Call me Alex please. you don't need to thank me for judging in your speeches. i've heard this a few times and it's just cringy. i'm not gonna vote you down for it, obviously. but still lol -- it makes me laugh sometimes.

I mainly judge policy debates and only compete in CX, however, I think I will be tempted to judge LD debates like a policy debate, so I recommend you read the notes above.

a few notes:

If the debate comes down to framing, the Aff has to win framing prior to me weighing its solvency against the Neg. If the Aff loses their framing, they can’t solve/weigh the Aff vs Neg args, thus I vote Neg on presumption.

If there are any theoretical reason(s) to reject the team, I evaluate that prior to any positions in the debate. For example, topicality or conditionality.

Truth>tech

I want your evidence after the round unless I say I don’t want it otherwise. Send to nguyenam@umich.edu

Evidence quality means a lot to me

Saying racist/queer phobic/misogynistic means I will vote you down immediately, report you to your coach, and tabroom.

i highly recommend you read the section in my policy paradigm about Aff solvency.

if you want to run a K, do it right, but I don’t think Ks are prevalent in OK LD.

if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

---

PF Paradigm:

Please don't call me judge. Call me Alex. I highly suggest you read my tl;dr version of my policy paradigm.

I tend to judge these debates like a policy debate, so that means I flow on a policy debate template on Excel or on paper like policy debate (more likely on Excel when judging). I will hold the line on arguments dropped in speeches then brought up in the last speech. I am a truth>tech judge, meaning I will likely call for pieces of evidence during the round, if not after the round.

I tend to see a lot of PF debaters telling me "My opponents dropped X argument! That means you should vote for me!" Even if it is true, you need to tell me why it matters in this round. I hate having to piece things together like this at the end of the round, and it ultimately leads to me piecing together an RFD that you probably won't like. Also, see the part above about internal link/impact extensions.

I am okay with spreading in PF, but please be clear. If you don't want to spread, that is okay.

Please keep track of your own prep time. I'll likely be timing your speeches, CX, and prep time, but there's a decent chance I get off track.

FOR OKLAHOMA DEBATE: if you have me on a panel, I recommend you adapt to how the other Oklahoma judges likes to judge debates, unless they're a normal nat circuit judge. I'm very flexible when it comes to different forms of debating, whether it's a parent/lay judge or not. I've seen it all during my time debating in OK.

—-

Paradigm for speech/drama events:

my only preferences is that you don’t be racist, queerphobic, and/or misogynistic. Don’t call me judge, call me Alex. the purpose of the speech/drama events is to sound nice, persuasive, and performative, so do just that.

(just a side note about these speech/drama events: I have no clue why judges make you all dress up in fancy suits/dresses. I think debate/speech/drama should be fun and enjoyable activities where you should not have to be in fancy clothes for >12 hours/day. Basically, I believe that you should feel comfortable when debating. I don't care what you wear.)

---

Parli comments:

I flow these debates the same way I flow policy debate because it's the easiest way for me to organize and judge all arguments at the end of the round. I also want the debaters to control the round, meaning I want them to keep track of time and control the direction of the debate. I mainly judge policy debate, otherwise, I follow normal conventions of parli.

Please try not to go over speech times. I know there may be grace periods, and that's fine, but don't be disrespectful/unfair to your opponents by going over time. If I'm timing and notice you go over by a lot, I WILL dock your speaker points.

If I'm torn between two really good args about the same thing, I will default to the side who has the evidence backing their arg vs the side who doesn't. If there's no ev involved, it will be evaluated best I can.

If you can't tell, ev means a lot to me. The more ev the better.

please include me on the email chain: hayley.ortwein@outlook.com

Jenks '22, KU '26

I'll vote you down if you're rude or creepy

I debated 4 years of hs and I now debate in college

i have debated both policy and kritical stuff but definitely have way more policy experience, so make sure you explain well. i will listen to any style though

i have mostly been a 2n so i understand reading some weird stuff on neg just don't make a bigoted argument and ill hear it out

judge instruction and impact calc are really important to me

Preface
Yes I want to be on the email chain. nickspereda@gmail.com.
Don't steal prep
I have not done research or judged a lot this year so at least for the first few tournaments keep that in mind.

Summary
I like flex debating and enjoy diverse strategies, so you do you and I will try to judge you with as little argumentative biases as possible. That being said, I am a human and I do have preferences.

I think the aff should read a plan text and defend it. At worst, I think the aff should have a strong resolutional basis. Probably related to that, I'm likely not the greatest judge for super K-oriented strategies. This is not to say I do not enjoy these debates or won't vote for Ks, but that you will have to do more work explaining the theory and its relationship to the aff than average.

I feel much more qualified in "policy" debates. I like wonky and technically intensive stuff so do something interesting.

Isolate what impacts you think you have a chance of winning and compare it to the impacts you think the other team has a chance of winning.

Speed:
I'm good with it but don't sacrifice clarity. Slow down on theory arguments, give me pen time.

*For online tournaments: Maybe slow down a bit to compensate for mic quality so I can still understand what you're saying.

Tech vs. Truth:
Tech> Truth. Being on the side of truth is obviously a good thing and I'm hesitant to consider arguments that are objectively false, but if you can't answer an argument that's really really bad, then you should lose anyways.

Evidence vs. Spin:
I think research is the most important aspect of debate and should be rewarded. I will read every card that I think I need to at the end of the round, so isolate evidence you think is really good or important. That being said, cards are support for larger arguments, meaning that I will default to your explanation of an argument or card whenever it makes sense.

In technical debates, have a card doc for the end of the round so I don't have to look around for relevant cards.

Quality>quantity

Specific argument preferences:
Topicality:

I went for T a lot in both high school and college and think a lot of debaters just aren't as good at debating it or as willing to go for it as a lot of other argument categories. Well executed T debates are really fun for me, but poorly executed T debates are the least enjoyable type of debate to judge. Limits and ground aren't impacts, they're internal links to things like education, fairness, research models, etc. I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is a winnable argument.

RVI's are bad arguments.

T comes before theory.

Case lists are good and necessary.

Actually engage with the other teams arguments, most T debates I've judged at this point have felt like ships passing in the night and forced me to resolve a lot of stuff on my own which should never be what you want. Statistically I lean neg in these debates, but I think that's because a lot of 2Ns only go for T if it's very clear cut which is unfortunate.

DA:
Cool. Aff specific DAs are much cooler (and usually easier to win).

There is such thing as zero risk and I think the link usually controls the direction of uniqueness.

Do a lot of turns case analysis that's actually contextualized to the internal links of the 1AC. Not much else to say.

CP:
Good, not much else to say. I will say that I like advantage CP + Impact turn debates a lot.

Word PICs should be based on a word in the plantext, anything other than that is meh.

Read a solvency advocate, each plank should be based on evidence or something the other team said.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless you tell me to.

Ks:

Material> High theory

I have a high threshold for the link portion of the debate. Root cause claims are not links but they can be solvency deficits. Fiat not being real is not an argument. Links of omission are the worst arguments in debate.

If I don't feel like I can explain your K to someone else by the end of the round then I will not feel comfortable voting for you.

Ks that advocate for death or suicide are not only bad arguments in the context of debate, but also morally objectionable and I will not vote for them.

K affs:
I am not the best judge for this. I prefer debates focused around a plan, and in nearly all of the clash debates I have judged at this point I have voted for FW.

I don't know that my ballot has the potential to do anything beside designate a winner or loser, and debate isn't meant to come to a final decision on the truth of any given statement but come to a determination on subjective truth so I don't think subject formation arguments are very persuasive.

The aff should at a minimum be related to the topic. You should also have some clear advocacy statement that you defend consistently. The CI should be predictable and res grounded with definitions. USFG = "the people" is intellectually dishonest and just not a good argument.

FW vs. K Affs:
Go for it, it's the most strategic 2NR available.

I'm more likely to vote on procedural fairness than I think the community at large is. Structural fairness disparities are inevitable but procedural fairness disparities aren't.

FW is not violent or policing and saying so is insulting to people that have dealt with those issues.

Theory:
Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. 3 conditional advocacies are probably ok but more is iffy. Consult, delay, and condition counter-plans are sketchy. Each conditional plank is its own world if you can kick them individually. I have been both a 2A and 2N, so I don't have any strong protectionist feelings for either team, and sometimes cheating is pretty fun to watch. Also I think the impact of some theory arguments should sometimes just be that you should get to cheat too.

Speaker points
They're entirely subjective. That being said, I do understand that context (tournament size, quality, etc.) should influence my scale. Speaker points are a holistic reflection of how I think you did. I used to have a scale here but with speaker point inflation I don't think it really matters anymore. My average hovers around 28.5-28.6.

I have shortened my paradigm over time to make it easier to read, if you have questions for prefs just email me.

Info: First year out attending Colorado College, debated from 8th grade to my senior year in 21', CX National Champ.

Pronouns: he/they

Add me to the chain: sring21@heritagehall.com

Top Level

Have fun, do what you want to do, don't be mean

Spreading is ok, go 70% for online

Tech over truth generally

Bio

I debated at Heritage Hall from 2016-21' and have been coached by Bryan Gaston, Joshua Michaels (<3), and Kristiana Báez. NSDA CX Champ 20' with the GOAT Saif Salim. I've run everything; mainly been a K debater for most of my career, but also have experience in high tech deterrence debates and any given basic policy strat. 

LD/Non-CX

Don't read random theory. I will not vote on a RVI. 2 condo limit seems fair with limited speeches. I am fine with any style of argument. I am fine with spreading and NatCir LD style.

Aff/Case Debate

Most 1AC's are fine, don't forget about the 1AC. Good case debate is underutilized and can help any strategy.

Ks

Please, go ahead, K's are by far my favorite argument in debate. But, don't over adapt to me, it's just my interest and I like seeing people utilize scholarship creatively and will reward a clear depth of understanding.

Compartmentalize and flag important arguments, you do not need a separate page for an OV and I will not flow it, good K debate should embed most of that OV stuff onto the line by line.

Framework ends up being a wash too often, neg teams shouldn't be so nebulous with their interps. A lot of aff teams are super generic on FW and you should exploit that with arguments that can turn any piece of potential offense they go for. Conversely, aff teams really need to do better on contextualizing FW and making specific answers, examples can help here.

Links are links, "state bad" isn't the best, the most important part of link debate is how you impact them out to create unique impacts in the imaginary world of the aff. Your link also shouldn't be when you asked a high school sophomore what the definition of death is in cx. 

I think the alt should probably resolve at least "some" of the impact in order to decidedly vote on the K unless told otherwise. Alts provide links uniqueness, and the FW debate should set the stage the alt.

DAs

I'm more likely to vote on a logical UQ overwhelms the link than I am to vote on a carded piece of impact d that is kinda trash. Pointing out logical flaws makes you look smart an wdill be rewarded. But, obviously have carded answers and do good ev comparison, especially on politics. I think politics are a crucial DA for any topic, but when topic specific DAs exist those should be prioritized.

Good impact comparison and internal link analysis will go far, build the world of what the DA looks like while engaging with what the aff says, don't just tell a 4 point line assuming 1:1 on each step

CPs

Prove they solve the entirety of the aff, or at least as much as you need to, do the analysis on why it doesn't have to or why a chance of the NB outweighs. Your CPs should be nuanced and specific to the aff, and well contextualized if generic.

Perm debates can be weird, but I think the best way to get away with a cheating perm is good theory args. Process and agent cps are sketchy but can be ok so long as they're different enough.

Aff - point out key solvency deficits that are unique to the aff, and find a way to make them into NB's for the perm

T

Not the best judge for t debates. T outweighs condo and is never an RVI.

If you want to go for T in front of me, examples will take you far, and well impacted out standards with clear links and internal links will be rewarded. The only real impact is education.

FW

Have good reasons for why the education provided by policy debate is good. I don't have a hard-line stance on if fairness or education can ever be intrinsically good so just do good, contextual line by line on whatever you think can best engage with the aff ideas. Fairness should more than likely be an IL not an impact by itself, but that doesn't mean I won't buy it if well explained.

Do line by line that answers their theory as specifically as possible, and defend your model well.

TVAs can be extremely helpful if they're specific enough. Iterative testing and direct education impacts matter far more than ground, limits, whatever. Education is really the only impact that matters, everything else is fluff or just lowkey IL's to edu.

K Affs

Don't be too k tricky and keep the line by line clean for your own sake

Theory

Just line by line and win your model of debate is better. Condo is prob the only reason to reject the team, and I'm not the best for judging it - don't go high speed in theory rebuttals.

Misc.

Don't clip cards or steal prep

Don't be transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.

Don't be too mean, I get discourse but there are limits

"insert recut" isn't a thing, read it

Answer CX questions. have fun

Trey Roark

She/Her/They/Them

If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at trey.roark3@gmail.com (Also add me to the email chain)

Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face

TL;DR:

If I'm judging you in another event that isn't policy, pop off on whatever you want, I'm pretty fluid when it comes to argumentation.

Go off on whatever

Love speed especially when clear

Also, cross-ex is something I pay attention to a lot.

Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)

Top Level:

I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).

Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bold, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.

IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams

Arguments:

KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT and Sex Worker research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.

Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says "screw the res" that's cool too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.

Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this, especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.

TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho to ;)

DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you're running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.

CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity of CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.

Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.

KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for how plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.

Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.

Things I hate

- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)

- Stealing Prep

- Clipping

- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism/Transphobia, etc.

Debate is supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.

Add tyrossow@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a sophomore at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics, philosophy, and political science. I was previously an LD instructor at VBI and taught debate this summer as well.

***General Thoughts***

--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.

--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.

----- I enjoy highly technical debates.

------- Speed is fine but be clear.

------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.

------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.

***Policy Paradigm***

Policy AFFs: I like them.

*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.

K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for them. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.

Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.

CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.

K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am okay with continental philosophy as well. In addition:

*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.

*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.

*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.

*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.

T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.

*** I default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote for it.

*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.

*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.

*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.

Framework:

*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.

*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.

*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.

*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.

*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. I'm not a good judge for impact turns to clash and fairness. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, are a much better strategy in front of me.

*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is critical.

***LD Paradigm***

General Thoughts:

---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.

---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.

K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:

*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.

*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.

Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.

*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.

Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat.

*** Giving examples that prove your philosophy is vital.

Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability on theory, not T; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.

*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I cannot promise that you will be happy with your speaks.

*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.

*** RVIs are possibly fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.

*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”

3 years CX at Moore High School, 1 year LD

NYU '24, NYU Parli

email chain: eveseabourn@gmail.com

be respectful of everyone in the round, bigotry is not tolerated -_-

Keep your own prep just in case!

For LD:

I am familiar with traditional and progressive styles of LD. The first thing I look at when writing a ballot is the framework of the debate. That lets me decide what impacts and arguments I should prioritize. I am open to any type of argument as long as you can defend it! Make sure to clearly sign post your arguments. Arguments should have a warrant attached, otherwise they can be difficult to evaluate. For specific issues like condo/topicality, I am open to anything, with the obvious exception that the arguments are well constructed and have a clear impact story. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

TLDR: Read whatever, just be organized and give clear voters / comparative analysis.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that I stop flowing you.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

I did policy debate for Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read both critical arguments and policy ones, so just read whatever you want. Good case debate is my bread and butter. I think debate is both a game and a place to learn things but you can convince me otherwise.

UC Berkeley 2021 (go bears)

College - caldebatechain@gmail.com, debatedocs

High School - ktwimsatt at gmail

- Tech over truth. Only exception is death good arguments/spark. Do not read them; I will not vote on them.

- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

Have fun!