v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think too many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

Hello!

The Basics: I am fine with spreading as long as it is flowable and I can understand what you are saying. The best advice I can give you is to BE CONFIDENT!

Specifics: I am a Policy debater myself so I will understand and vote on Case, CP, T, and DA's. If its the better argument then I will definitely take it into how I vote. I am familiar with the basics of K's and enjoy a well run K.

In conclusion the best thing you can do is understand your arguments and be confident. Good luck! I look forward to judging you!!

P.S. I will give extra speaks for pop culture references and song quotes thrown into speeches...the more the better. ;)

Danniel Christensen

dannielchristensen1@gmail.com

Currently an assistant coach @ Lansing High School

1.5 years College Debate @ K-State

4 years HS debate @ Shawnee Mission West

Policy Debate:

Tech over truth

I have no knowledge of the current topic

Tl;dr: I will evaluate everything in the round. At the end of the day, this is a debate, so do what you are good at and have fun.

Affs: Anything. I read planless affirmatives all the time, but at the same time, I also read topical affirmatives.

Impact turns: They are fun.

Topicality: I vote on T. Even if it doesn't make sense. I do not like RVI's, but I will vote on them if they are conceded.

Disadvantages: Impact framing is important. Give me some way to weigh the impact of the DA in relation to the aff.

Counterplans: Default condo, CP's are great, cheating CP's aren't cheating until it has been proven that they are cheating. I will vote on theory but make sure you slow down on your theory shells so that I can catch all of your arguments. Debaters have a fun habit of just spreading everything, and that can make it difficult to catch blippy arguments that are often embedded in theory arguments.

Kritiks: FW is a way to win my ballot. Explain the alt in a way that resolves a link (usually isn't an instantaneous action). You don't have to go for the alt, just make sure you explain how the link/impact alone should win the debate. The role of the Ballot is a great way to explain how I evaluate the round. I know most K lit, but buzzwords don't explain anything to me.

I flow every speech straight down, so the presence of an overview is meaningless to me.

Notes for LD:

I have done both the classic value-criterion style and the new policy style. Either is fine with me. Just make sure it all flows and give me a lens to evaluate the round. Why am I voting for you (offense)? Why am I not voting for the other debater (defense)?

To win an LD debate you can employ any of these strategies:

1. My value is better than yours

2. My criterion can lead to your value, but your criterion cannot obtain my value

3. your criterion cannot solve your value, but mine can solve my value

4. Offense/Defense (policy style that has grown in LD)

Speaks:

30: Fantastic -- one of the best rounds I've seen

29: Some things to work on -- but overall you did pretty good (above average)

27-28: This is average -- some mistakes, but you recovered

26: You executed something wrong

Sam Church

Harvard '27 | Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA, "Law-Suh") '23

TLDR: I am indifferent.

please add me to the email chain: samsdebateemail@gmail.com

---Paradigm---

I am a first year out. I debated on the national policy debate circuit for all four years of high school, and am currently doing policy debate at Harvard.

Debate is ultimately a technical game. I find myself frustrated when judges attempt to intervene with their own conceptions of "truth," or "argumentative quality." As such, I will attempt to disregard my preconceived notions to the best of my abilities when deciding a debate. The 2AR and 2NR should therefore begin by telling me where to start.

I don't want a card doc. Instead, teams should point out what evidence they think matters and why the other team's evidence is bad. Please refer to evidence by author name if you want me to go back through and find it.

I probably care less about cards and evidence quality than other people. Bad arguments can be beaten with short analytics, if a team can't adequately respond to an awful argument then they don't deserve to beat it.

I absolutely do not care what arguments you read.

Counterplans: no thoughts. I will happily judge a competition or theory debate.

Kritiks: I am familiar with most of them. will happily zero the aff or zero the links depending on how framework goes.

K Affs: I am probably better for T than K v K. impact turn the reading of framework, the resolution, whatever, I do not care.

Little Rock Central '21

Email: nicolecmdoris@gmail.com

I'll pretty much vote on anything. I love K debates, specifically KvK, but as long as you impact out, frame, and tell me what to vote on and why you should be fine. Rely more on analysis than cards. This goes for all offcase positions. If I don't understand what the CP/K does or the DA scenario until the 2NR i'll be less likely to vote for you.

CP/DA - ANALYSIS! So many debaters rely on cards more than explanation in these rounds. Tell me why the aff specifically triggers and link and how the DA outweighs case. I love a good turns case analysis that is more than just "extinction causes more violence". Make sure the DA doesn't link to the CP at all, because i'm pretty persuaded by these arguments from the aff. You can read any CP you want in front of me (even delay) as long as you paint a persuasive negative picture. I am not going to enjoy a 6+ off debate.

K - Yay! Some Ks I've read that might help: Cap (duh), Militarism, Disability, University, Necro, Security, Political Theology, etc. Please don't read a generic link with no explanation of how the aff uniquely triggers the impacts.

Theory - I have a pretty high threshold for theory on everything from condo (unless they read an obnoxious amount of offcase) to delay cps. If this is what you go for, outline your offense and defense clearly and implicate the opponents arguments clearly. Embedded clash won't help you here.

Kaffs - Yay! You can totally pref me if you read a K aff. Just make your method clear. I'm cool with framework on both sides. Just saying "Kaffs are cheating" won't persuade me (they aren't). As long as you win I'll vote for you.

Cx that reveals the problems with the other side's arguments are the best, but don't be rude. Seriously, I will doc speaks and be less likely to vote for you if you are rude to your partner or the other team.

i am okay with any arguments as long as they are flushed out, have evidence and you speak clearly enough:)

Jenna Jiang

Casady School

Pronouns - she/her

jennajiang@casady.org -- pls put me on the chain, don't leave me out

I'm not serious, at all. Often times you'll see me laughing during the debate, and I don't mean any harm; I probably just find something you said hilarious, even though it probably wasn't. I do like to see some attitude during the debate, maybe some extra spice, but don't make it excessive to the point that it's bullying. I will call you out if you seem to be pushing the limits.

As for spreading, do it all you want on the cards in the constructive speeches. When it comes to analytics and line-by-line, please don't go full Eminem on them. No one can keep up. If I don't understand you, then I don't expect the opposing side to understand you either.

Extra speaks:

If you are able to reference Kpop (preferably BTS, WayV, Seventeen, Blackpink, TXT, etc.), then I'll give you a +0.2. If you can reference a Kdrama or a Cdrama, then that's a +0.2 also.

K Tingz

I'm not that familiar with K's as I am more policy orientated (DAs, CPs, T, etc.). That being said, if you are able to present your argument and have me understand it, then that's probably a +1 for you. Don't read a K if you don't know what it's talking about, please, because most likely I'll have no idea what you're talking about too. Give me a clear overview on top of the 2NC/1NR. Be clear about the link, or else I'll just shrug and disregard it.

If you're answering the K

Be logical about your answers. That's it. Since the debate is on your home ground, be confident.

Theory

Condo very good. I will probably never vote on a condo bad arg.

Tech vs Truth

I lean towards tech more, so often times I'll just base everything off what you say. I usually won't be like "wow that's impossible in the real world" because lets face it, how much of debate is gonna happen in the real world?

Impact

Impact calc, impact calc, impact calc. I don't know how much I can stress that. Tell me what I should vote on.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Tell me what I should vote on. Tell me why you should win. Direct me, make my decision easier.

Overall, just hype it up.

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Jasmyne Le-Heritage Hall-Class of 2021

Email: JLe21@heritagehall.com

Unique for this year: debating this year is a bit hectic so I will be more lenient on tech issues in terms of emails, prep etc. That being said, I still will not stand stealing prep for it.

Summary (if you're too lazy to read all this): Everything in terms of arguments is pretty good, as long as you can explain and extend them. I like more soft left AFFs than big stick AFFs but will listen to both. I'm more policy leaning than K leaning, but Ks are fine, I can understand most identity Ks but high theory Ks (Deleuze, Baudrillard etc) I honestly won't probably understand. Speak clearly and don't steal prep or clip cards. Be nice, if you're intentionally racist homophobic, sexist, or overall being rude then you're going to probably lose and get an automatic 25. Otherwise, just relax and debate.

General (Applies to Both Teams)

Email/Flashing

Honestly, I prefer email chains because they're a lot more efficient and better in every way possible. If you decide to do an email chain, please include me (email is above). I will be more lenient with online debating, but please be mindful. If you are taking more than 5 minutes to email something, I will start taking prep. Just be mindful of everyone's time.

Also, please if you're aff disclose your aff before the round unless you're breaking a new AFF it makes it a lot smoother & easier.

Cross-Examination

Open Cross-examination is completely fine, but if it goes out of hand (Ie: people are screaming and fighting and no actual arguments are happening at all) then I'm going to shut it down. Just keep it, nice, people.

Speaking/Speeches

There's not much to say here, just general stuff that you shouldn't do not just around me but for every debate round in general. First, give a road map, regardless if you're aff or neg. The only speech this isn't necessary is the 1AC. For 1NC you should give me a general idea how many off case you're reading, though don't need to tell the specific ones. Every other speech you should tell the order. Also, it makes it a lot easier and will win you more speaker points if you organise your aff arguments to specific flows. What I mean by this is to not jump around while aff because it makes it harder to flow and easier for me to miss an argument or put it in the wrong place because I don't know specifically where to answer it.

As for also answering arguments, make sure you tell what argument you're answering (they say) and then say what you're saying. If you're extending an argument, do a quick summary and analysis.

Spreading is fine BUT YOU MUST BE CLEAR. I can spread pretty quickly so I can understand a lot, but especially be clear in online debating. I will say clear 3 times in a speech and after that I will stop flowing and lose speaker points. Also, please tell me when you're moving onto a different paper and slow down on the tag lines. As for clipping, just don't do it. If you clip your cards you're taking an L.

Finally, I will be timing your prep so you don't need to and be writing it down, though I recommend you should just for habit. If you have any personal questions for me in round you can also ask them.

AFF

K/Planless AFFs

I'm not a huge fan but I think they actually have good usage on this topic and I think they're useful. If you do run, here's what I'm looking for:

1) why we shouldn't use the USFG (needs to be clear)

2) why your impacts outweigh (education, advocacy etc)

3) if they have a TVA answer it

Plan Text AFFs

I love soft left AFFs (AFFs about racism, structural violence etc) and think they should be used more, particularly with this topic. Honestly soft left AFFs are the best for this topic. What I'm looking for mostly is an explanation of your impact, and why it outweighs (particularly if you're going against util DA arguments and why I should prefer your ethics over extinction) and how your AFF solves this.

That being said, I will vote on big stick AFFs (AFFs about extinction on a large scale). I don't think they're great on the topic honestly, but they're fine. I am more open to solvency deficits or being sceptical of the internal link chain, and if the team points it out, you will have to address how your internal link chain will trigger this. Also be sure to explain why your impact outweighs or matters (timeframe, magnitude probability etc) and how your AFF solves this.

In terms of T I'm not too picky because y'all are novices and you're on the packet. For this year I think most things are T unless A--they literally have nothing to do with CJR like even educationally or B they increase criminality, just don't read that in front of me because if they read a T bidirectional and go for it I will probably agree with it.

NEG

DAs

I don't think DAs are super strong so I will be more lenient on them. DAs are good, just make sure to explain your impacts and why they outweigh if you end up going for it in your 2NR and how they link to that specific AFF. The more specific the better. Politics DAs are good as long as you know your evidence and how it interacts with the AFF.

Also, for this topic, be very careful with your wording and how you explain AFFs to not to sound racist. This applies especially to this topic since it can be sensitive for people. There are some bad DAs that can be really misconstrued to sound really bad, and I'm not blaming you if you read it, but if you do say like African Americans are more likely to be arrested by police, or that racism is solved, just don't.

CPs

CPs are again good, I think in particular State CPs and other agency CPs are really good on this topic and solve super well. I'm mainly looking for this:

1) how it solves specific to the AFF, not necessarily better, but enough to solve the AFF's impacts and avoid the DA/cause the Net Benefit.

2) why it outweighs and is better than the AFF

Also if they read theory, do answer it as an FYI.

T

I already talked about it in my AFF thing above that I'm pretty lenient on it, but I am still open to it, especially if done well.

In general, here are my opinions about some generic Ts

-Court AFFs are questionably topical but more likely topical than not.

-Substantial is pretty much moot, unless the AFF is literally tiny (like affects under 100 ppl) and they can't explain why that matters for that tiny subset, then I'll give it to the team to be sufficient

-I think AFFs need to be under one of the 3 subsets (policing, sentencing & forensics) I'm not super into overarching CJR policies that aren't specific to one

-bidirectional (AFF that increase crime) ARE NOT T

In terms of what I look for in T here's what I look for:

1) how the AFF violates the definition

2) why your definition is better (not only better than the AFF's definition, but also why it's good for debate)

3) why I should vote on this (fairness education, ground etc)

K

I'm pretty open to Ks, but mostly common Ks and identity Ks. I'm not super into author-specific or high-theory Ks as I'm not familiar with the lit but am open to them if explained well. Here are the things I'll be looking for regardless of what the K is.

1) Framework--what the ballot does and the role of me, in this debate

2) how it links to the AFF, the more specific the better

3) what the impact is, and why it matters over the impacts of the AFF

4) how the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and the impacts of the AFF. This means no vague alts arguments or just vote neg, where I don't have any clue how it's supposed to resolve. Also not a huge fan of nihilistic/pessimistic alternatives where we just accept it.

5) KNOW YOUR LITERATURE IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT I CAN TELL-YOU SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN ME

Theory

Honestly, I don't think there will be or should be much theory in novice rounds, so this is just more or less in case you do read it.

Conditionality: my limit is around 3-4. I think 3 is kind of borderline (depending on the argument), 5 is really pushing it and you're going to have me pretty legitimate reasons why you're reading that many.

State CP theory: I'm more neutral. Like yes, I think that it is utopian and there is no way 50 states would ever do it, but I also think AFFs should be expected and it is a legitimate argument against AFFs this year.

Vague Alt Theory: is legitimate but needs to impact out. Don’t be afraid to go for it. I've already said this before in the Ks part but if you're aff you should make that argument. If you don't understand it, chances are they're probably not explaining it well and I also would be willing to be open to this argument as it can lead the NEG to be shifty and abusive.

Speaker Points

Speaker points and pretty arbitrary and honestly kind of terrible but if you care about this I'll explain my general grading system

25: you did something wrong like majorly wrong (offensive, broke a rule etc)

26-27: You didn't do anything technically wrong in terms of rules, but you still did something bad (like not being clear at all, being rude in cross x, not extending any arguments, just not prepared at all), or just seem that you don't want to be here and make this painful for me to watch like watching a train wreck. Don't do this.

27-28.5: Most people in the beginning of the year will fall into this category. You're beginning in debate, but still learning a lot, which is okay. If I judge you again you will probably be higher afterwards by 2nd semester.

28.5-29.5: You're really good, just a couple minor things that need to work on.

29.5-30: I rarely give this, all your speeches have to be perfect. I will probably only give it once a year.

+1=good cross X, both answering and receiving, also this is good ethos in general

+1=rebuttals especially 2AR & 2NR will have a lot of weight on my speaker points since they're the last speeches, this where the majority of your speaks will be based on how this speech is. Same for 1NR & 1ARs.

End Notes

At the end of the day, debate can suck and is exhausting but also can be a lot of fun. Don't take it too seriously, nothing will happen if you lose a debate round in your novice year. Literally no one cares, you don't have TOC or anything so you shouldn't be too serious. In the end, it's mainly about getting better and learning from each round. Have fun, stay calm, and just relax-it'll be fine!

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

UMich ‘25

LASA ‘21

I am making my paradigm increasingly grumpy to reflect my feelings when judging debates.

If you think that Wake Forest RT defeated Michigan PP in the finals of the 2023 NDT, strike me.

I don't think I'm a particularly good judge. I would strike me if I was doing prefs as a policy team too. I will do my best to evaluate any debate I am in but I just don't think that is very good. I am trying to be super transparent so that you can do prefs with a full idea of how I judge and how good of a judge I am.

If both teams agree to stake the debate on something other than an actual debate, (i.e. a chess game, a board game), we can do that and I will give as close to a 30 to everyone as I can. This is the ideal scenario. If this doesn't happen, I will be sad.

Add me to the email chain: mayacxdebate@gmail.com. Please title it with tournament name, round number, and team names so I can find it later. Don't use NSDA file share. If I have to download a document with NSDA file share, you and your partner will get a 25.

Please send out a Word doc, if possible.

Tech over truth. However, I do need to be able to explain back to the other team why you won. This means I've found I have a higher burden of explanation for certain arguments that make less intuitive sense to me and that I've had less experience with. Sometimes this means that even if I feel like you are the better debaters, you still lose the debate (usually this happens when it is a K/K aff and teams just say buzzwords and I am left confused).

Please do specific impact calculus. I would like to take the easy way out and evaluate the impacts the way the debaters describe and I think this causes less judge intervention.

If I have to be judging, I would like to judge unintuitive impact turns. Not death good (although I will vote for that if you win it). Climate change good and prolif good are perfect examples of these. Dedev is not.

Unless it is dropped, I won't vote for personal attacks or things that happened outside of the round. A sufficient response is "don't evaluate things that happened outside the round."

I'm not going to pretend that my predispositions don't factor into the way I evaluate debates even though I will try to limit them.

Theory

I want to cast the easiest ballot possible. This means I am willing to vote on any dropped theory argument that was a reason to reject the team even if they kicked the argument it was about. It does need to be a full extension in subsequent speeches.

I am willing to vote on most theory as reasons to reject the team if it's dropped even if they kicked the argument. I want to put the least amount of thinking to my decision as possible.

Ks

You probably shouldn't pref me for K debates. What I read in college has absolutely no bearing on the debates I am qualified to judge or want to see. Just because there are some Ks that are okay in front of policy judges does not mean they are okay in front of me. Usually, people take this as, "it'll be okay we just read Cap and Security" but you shouldn't.

Against an aff that can go for util outweighs, you will have a hard time winning that your structural violence impact outweighs.

I have yet to understand an explanation of why the 2NR can just go for framework (including in debates where I'm giving the 2NR) and not a material alt (which is then solved by the perm). It is unclear to me why voting neg solves the impacts to the K if they don't fiat an alt. If you fiat an alt, it seems like the perm should overcome any disads to the aff.

Between two equal teams, the aff should always win the perm solves. Between a better neg team and a worse aff team, the aff should nearly always win the perm solves. Between a varsity neg team and a novice aff team, I suppose the neg will probably win but it will be begrudgingly, and at that point, you could just as easily beat them on a policy argument and I will be much happier with you and your speaks will indicate that.

K affs

Most of the K section should give you the idea that I'm probably not the best to have in the back for this debate. Because I think this might be important to the way you see my judging: I read framework against K affs until part way through junior year of high school with no success. At that point, I pivoted to reading specific K arguments, Cap or frame subtraction against K affs.

I have slightly more confidence in my ability to evaluate a K v. K debate than a K v. Framework debate. Framework debates generally have lots of analytics that are read at full speed which makes it a lot harder for me to keep up.

T

I don't judge high school frequently or do any research on the topic. I never went for T that frequently. What this means is you're gonna have to slow down and I will barely know what the resolution is. Go for T at your own risk.

DAs/CPs

This is mostly for novices. Have an external impact. Do line by line. It would help you a lot if you have a way to access the affs impact either through your impact turning theirs or a CP.

Analytics that are specific to the other teams' warrants will get you as far as (and probably farther than) reading your generic uniqueness updates block for whatever tournament. This includes the politics DA. Look at what states/specific senators/blocks of representatives the other team talks about and provide reasons why they're wrong.

I auto-judge kick if it isn't brought up in the debate but if it is, I will evaluate who won it.

Miscellaneous stuff that won't cost you the debate but that you should listen to

Theory should be answered on the page where it was read. Your order should not have the name of a theory argument in it or say "I'll do theory here." I guarantee you I do not know where the theory argument was read off the top of my head.

Write down how much prep time you have left on either your flow or somewhere on your laptop. It wastes so much time to stand up, find a marker, and write it on a board. Also, it will make me think less of you.

CX time isn't meant for clarifying questions, use it to attack the other teams cards/arguments. 1-2 clarifying questions are okay beyond that it should be prep.

Do you really need to ask for "reasons to reject the team" just learn how to flow.

I am completely fine with reading condo on pages that aren't conditional worlds. It makes it more likely the other team will drop it and I would prefer a condo debate to a substance debate especially if it is dropped.

Perf con isn't a real argument unless the aff is willing to concede something to get out of the other argument. Obviously, if it's dropped I will vote on it though.

Kiran Naidu - he/him

University of Oklahoma '26 (chemical biosciences pre-med)

Casady School '22

kirannaidudebate@gmail.com (Put me on the email chain)

TLDR

I have not judged any rounds on this year's topic, but I have a lot of experience in policy debate and am quick to pick things up. I am not partial for policy v. k. Just be articulate, know your ev, and be organized. Default to 2AC order. If you are deciding between throwing in another off and having a better case debate, I would prefer a more in depth case debate.

AFFs

I’m good with K Affs as long as they are articulated well. Don’t read them just to be cool. You should have a reason why this debate is a more important debate to have than any other debate about the resolution. I read mostly soft left/K affs, but I'm good for whatever. On policy affs, I think generally less is more, meaning less advantages/impact scenarios, but with better I/L chains.

Case [NEG]

I think there should be a viable 2NR strat from case if you are doing a good job.

Impact turns? Yes.

Kritiks

I am a pretty big fan of K lit. The more specific the link to the plan the better. Do not read excessively long overviews (I will not flow it on a different sheet). I would much rather hear it on the line by line. Try not to get hooked on trigger phrases. If you can’t explain the K in a clear manner then don’t read it. I think that weighing the aff is probably a good idea and it would probably be an uphill battle to convince otherwise. Likewise, I think that aff FW interps should not exclude critical approaches as a whole. [FW debates can be hard to decide -- I will default to weighing the aff unless you win that it is bad.] On the neg you should really engage with the substance of the kritik more, because more often than not it will have built in answers to things like Util or alt DA's.

DA

Disads are great. The more specific it is to the plan the more convincing it is to me. I’m not a huge fan of politics DAs because they make most debates sound the same. But that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it. In order for me to vote for a DA, I need strong impact calc in the 2NR. For example, "the disad outweighs and turns case because..."

CP

Make sure you clearly have a net benefit. Counterplans should be read in the 1NC with a solvency advocate. Again, a common theme in my paradigm, I value CPs more when they are crafted to be specific to the AFF, but generic CPs on the topic are fine to read in front of me. I think aff perms should be very developed in the 2AC. I will tend to default neg on CP theory when it comes to process or agent CPs, but I will probably err aff on theory when it comes to private actors, international actors, or consult CPs. I will instinctively judge kick the CP, unless told otherwise by the aff.

T

I do not really like T debates that much, but if you have a clearly reasonable interp, or if the AFF is just not T, then I won’t hesitate to vote on it. Give me standards as to why I should prefer your interp. For me to vote on T it must be impacted out. Don't read T as a time skew.

Theory

I am down to vote on theory if your args are fleshed out. Tell me about the harmful implications of their theory within and outside of debate.

I think condo is generally good as its a good strategy for the neg since the aff chooses what the debate is about. But I do think the neg can abuse condo. Generally I think 2-3 condo is good for debate, any more and that’s a little bit sus.

I think more people should read vague alts. It’s a good arg.

Misc.

Don't call me "judge." Just call me Kiran.

Tech > Truth [but with that being said I have a higher tech threshold for less truthful args and I have a lower tech threshold for more truthful args]

Have fun and don't be rude to each other.

Be nice to each other but be passionate about what you’re talking about. Pathos builds up Ethos.

I will vote a team down for being rude.

I don't count sending out the email as prep.

I am good for speed as long as you are clear. If not I will say “clear.”

Don’t steal prep or clip cards.

Please make your speech docs organized.

I think like a 2A.

Don't feel like you need to change how you debate in front of me. Do you want you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate.

Please ask me as many questions after the round as you want and feel free to email me.

i go by tech, (he/they)

uclab 2022

email chain please: rnxdebate@gmail.com

im probably only going to judge novices for the 2020-21 and 2021-2022 year, but here's a full paradigm anyway.

tldr, partially stolen from sonny patel:

- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- generally better for the k, aff or neg, but i'm open to voting on nearly anything you put in front of me. details below.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters.
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating

info about me:

i go to uclab, currently a senior and technically in my in my 4th year for debating, but i haven't done a tournament this year (college apps </3). i am a black, trans, and queer person - this inevitably impacts how i view certain arguments. i am a k debater (mainly identity critiques), but policy is chill too. i am generally tech > truth. i obviously try my best to leave my biases at the door, but no judge is completely unbiased. alright enough about me

personal thoughts about debate

i am someone who believes that debate is a place of education and changing subjectivity. i think what arguments you choose and ones you interact with do impact how you think about the world in some way. i have a lot of sympathy for k debaters specifically, as both a k debater myself, and also as someone who believes that debates should be about what interests and impacts you. i think debate and how we debate changes and fluctuates to adapt to the world, and that debaters and judges and coaches should too. this "philosophy" for lack of a better word frames a lot of how i see debate - take that however way you want.

however, if you debate well enough on anything, you can win on anything, regardless of my personal opinions.

general stuff:

please, be clear :)

you can read basically anything in front of me as long as it isn't racist/sexist/anti-queer/etc.

please don't be overly mean/rude. sass in crossex and in your speeches is great if you aren't being rude after/before/during rounds. HOWEVER if its for performative reasons (queer rage, black rage, native rage, etc) than i think to some extent its fine, but i don't think it should extend before or after round.

@ novices: please flow :))

send docs, especially since it's online debate. try and send analytics in case you cut out/someone has audio processing issues.

some judges hate cursing, but i literally don't care. curse in every sentence if you want.

i'm very expressive. if you want to know what i think of something, often you can see it on my face and in my expressions.

people who impacted me the most in debate: sonny patel, ignacio evans, dsrb, and beau larsen

long version:

t/framework

if it's a policy aff v. t, i think these could be good debates, but they usually get really messy. i will vote on reasonability.

if it's k aff v. t: i cannot lie, i am generally aff leaning on these types of t debates, but this does not mean i will never vote neg/cannot be convinced that the performance of the aff prevents -insert impact-. i consider myself aff leaning more k aff debates v t because t teams never seem to grapple with the actual content of the aff when they run t - often k teams are built to answer t, so they use their scholarship to answer it. so when you are debating a k team, you still have to contextualize your blocks to their actual content. again, that doesn't mean i hate t or will never vote on it out of spite. this also doesn't mean k teams should think i'm automatically going to vote for you.

i think the aff should be able to defend either why their departure from the status quo is good, or why they are still topical despite utilizing nontraditional means (no plan text, poetry, etc.). i generally think the former is more convincing. i don't think fairness is an impact but rather an i/l to education, but again if you can convince me otherwise, i'm more than happy to vote on it. convincing arguments for me on T are (good) tvas, education impacts, and in round abuse arguments. pointing to when they have been abusive in round and running good tvas that engage with their scholarship and paint a picture for how their language and rhetoric can be included traditionally without sacrificing their scholarship is 10x more convincing then "we can't run elections da :(".

for affs, i rlly like well thought out c/i's. offering ways in which to think differently about how we debate and what we debate is great. other than that, impact turns are generally more convincing to me than a w/m, but if you are able to argue it well i'm down for either.

some wake debate camp advice: challenge yourself to engage with a k's literature. when you're prepping for a tournament, instead of writing T next to every K aff on your spreadsheet, try to engage the aff on a level other than the procedural. it can help you open up your literature base and maybe learn something new :)

da's

i'm always pro aff specific links/da's. p l e a s e do impact analysis! judge instruction at the top of your rebuttals is great. tell me why i should vote for you and what that does/will do.

cps

chill, cross apply above. explain the net benefit to the cp well, i feel like sometimes people just say it and don't explain how the cp resolves the da/whatever. theory stuff can be super cool and creative and can make debates interesting, so if you have funky theory stuff you can run it :)

ks

my fav :). i mainly debate identity critiques with a sprinkle of high theory but i'm cool with anything. baudy gets a lot of hate (honestly, deserved) but it can be interesting especially if memed. performance kritiks (especially on the neg) are great and i really like listening to them, but please utilize the poem/performance throughout the entire round. leaving it in the 1ac/1nc and never using it again makes me sad. teams often never answer the performance (which you should, btw) so use that! use it as an argument, take lines from your poems and use it to answer their arguments. utilize it almost like it's an analytic. also, please don't forgo your thesis explanations just because I debated kritiks, you still need to do that to win any argument.

i'm pro specific links to affs, but unlike many judges that doesn't mean i won't vote on a link of omission (unless convinced otherwise). i do think framework often has a huge role in evaluating these, but if you have a lom, take lines from their aff and weave it into the link, take in round lines (cx answers, etc) and use them to make your link more specific, those can often be more convincing than a card.

aff, please make a perm. and don't just spread through 70 perms without any warrants or explanations, actually warrant out the perm and explain why it's more preferable. and neg, while i am guilty of whipping out the perm block and just doing that, have some specific answers to their perm and why its worse/why the aff is mutually exclusive just to close the door firmly on it.

for k-framework, i think it's seriously underutilized. it gets really messy at times, but i think a framework argument is not only important but can be damning. my default framework is who did the better debating, but once framework arguments are introduced i will vote depending on 1) who better convinced me that their rob is the best way to view the round and 2) who best meets that interpretation. compare your rob to your opponents, but ALSO compare who best meets that interpretation. its so much easier as a judge if you do some instruction. write my ballot for me.

on the alt, it is the weakest part of the kritik. don't stay married to it -- if it's the best decision for the round, don't be afraid to kick it and go for the impact turns. if you do go for it, make sure you explain the world of the alt or explain why vagueness is good.

i'm good with long o/v's but you still have to line up what you said in the o/v on the flow. also, if you don't slow down and spread through the o/v, all that embedded clash gets lost. if i cannot understand you, i cannot flow you, and therefore cannot evaluate any of the wonderful arguments you make. read your o/v at tagline speed.

kritiks i know very well/have debated: afropess/optimism (wilderson, warren, moten + harney), mbembe, baudrillard, black fem (sharpe, hartman), rodriguez, psychoanalysis, cap, security, abolition

kritiks i know kinda: sci-fi, deleuze, afrofuturism, model minority, puar, nieztche

k affs

i love these. performance? cool. plan text that you fiat? based. plan text you don't fiat? great. no plan text? nice. just make sure you have a complete understanding of your aff and your aff's scholarship. if you don't, it will show in your cx and i will be sad. for t stuff, please read the t/framework section.

k v k debates are, in my opinion, both enjoyable and frustrating. as a k debater, i find them so much more refreshing and engaging. k v k debates can often be two ships passing by, which can make judging, listening, and debating frustrating. being well read in multiple literature bases will help you tremendously. from experience, getting demolished in crossex when your opponent knows your thesis better than you do sucks. these debates can be incredible to listen to and think about, but when you are debating be as specific to the aff/neg's thesis as possible. it makes judging and debating so much easier. having a tight grasp on yours and your opponents literature can make your arguments more convincing and clash so much better.

use history!!! especially if its a theory of power debate, use historical examples to contextualize your theory -- theories can be very abstract and kind float and exist without context, so using history can make your jargon make more sense in real world context.

theory

sick. do it. creative theory debates can be really interesting and easily voted on. if you do the work on it i have no qualms voting on it.

speaker points

i start at a 28 and work up or down, any racism/sexism/anti-queerness/ableism/etc will result in an automatic L and the lowest speaks possible

things i evaluate:

- performance/poetry

- compelling crossex questions/answers

- clarity

- use of jokes (make me laugh)

- general spreading

@ novices, stolen again from sonny patel:

"Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help. :)"

if you have any questions, email me :) happy debating!

Add me on the email chain please: mizlaxshrestha@gmail.com (also feel free to email me with any questions :)

Hi friends, I'm a senior at Reagan and have done policy for 3 years but am doing LD this year. I have done a good amount of research on the policy topic this year though.

Run what you're best at. Do not be racist. sexist, homophobic etc. There is a difference between having ethos and being rude. Do not be rude.

I am fine with speed. Be clear and smooth, or I might not hear important arguments. Best to have a roadmap and clearly signpost throughout your speech.

Policy: Go for it.

Kritiks: Go for it. I am most familiar with Afropessimism, Cap, Settler Colonialism and Warren. Feel free to run others but make sure you can explain links/alts/framing well in cx and your rebuttals and not just spread blocks at 400 wpm. Saying a bunch of jargon/buzzwords isn't an explanation.

Framework/K Affs: You do you. Framework definitely needs to be impacted out - tell me why your model is best.

Theory: Do not run theory for the sake of theory. Not into "frivolous" theory. Condo is good but you can have that debate if you want.

Topicality: Competing interps > reasonability. Not a reverse voting issue. And explain why "it's a voter for fairness and education."

Add me to the email chain! Allisonstew6487@gmail.com

Don't stress about debate everything is going to be fine. I have a few things don't be rude. Cross is ok to cut people off if they are trying to run time as much as possible. Cross is for questions so you should be able to ask your questions. If you apply something said in cross ex make sure you point it out. Open cross is fine and you can speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear.

Tell me how I should evaluate the debate and make sure you include why you should win. If I don't know why I should be voting for you I probably won't.

T

I think Topicality is an important debate not like it's the most important if an aff is clearly topical I don't see the point in running it. If you drop that you are not topical sorry there isn't a way I could vote for you even if I think you are topical.

Everything else you run is up to you. Do what you feel comfortable with if you run a K make sure you and your partner understand it. If you don't understand what you are saying I won't vote on it. This is still novice debate so it's not the end of the world this is about experience getting better have fun!