Speak slowly if you can, i'm not very experienced with fast speakers.

I like to hear numbers in terms of impacts, and clean link chains.

I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge

1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast

2) Key points clear and well supported

3) Make good and logical arguments

4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

I participated in LD and CX back in the 1980's. I know some things have changed, but I will follow an argument all through the debate to see if it ends up being dropped by the opponents. I expect debater's to weigh each argument.

Explain how your arguments are pro or con to the resolution. I have been told I am a technical judge. I evaluate how the argument is presented and will count it in my decision even if I personnally disagree with the resolution. I know that the teams need to be able argue both sides of an issue and the resolution's truth is not what I'm evaluating. I'm watching to see who argued the resolution better.

Identify the arguments you are responding to. Make sure it is clear. example: The Negative Team's argument about having a less informed electorate is incorrect. My argument addressed this with the need for voters to learn about the issues.

Depending on the resolution, I may weight one side a little more than the other depending on how hard it is to make good arguments, but recognizing the truth of the resolution is not the reason for weigting it. Clever arguments and good cross examinations are important. An effective argument in Cross can win the debate.

If the Pro (Aff) vs Con (Neg) is decided by coin toss and the toss winner chooses Con and the Aff chooses to start second then I don't want any spreading from the Affirmative and only a little from the Negative. It is hard enough thinking backwards on the logic. If Aff goes first then a little spreading is OK from both teams. If the toss winner decides to be Affrimative, and Neg goes second I'm happy. If neg chooses to go first I will be harder on the neg. as I will be allowing the aff full rebuttal weight in the final round where Neg can no longer respond.

I'm finding 4-6 main arguments per debate about right. 3-5 for Affirmative and 2-4 for Negative. If Affirmative has a lot of Arguments the Negative team will have a job responding to all of them and may only have a couple of their own. This is not an expectation or requirement, just an observation I have made while judging.

I have been pleased to see teams being very polite in how the time for each speaker is managed. This has not been an issue.

I am new to judging this is my first tournament.

parent judge. will probably default util, no spreading. clear weighing, signposting, enunciation = good speaks

I am relatively new to judging.

PF: Please read slower than you would for a normal judge and prioritize weighing. I encourage you to drop arguments going into summary if you have one that is better than another. If you spread, I will give up trying to hear you. Running theory is ill-advised. I'm a parent judge.

Speech: I am a parent judge, so of course I am not going to be in the loop on all the technical aspects of your event. If you are the first speaker (or any speaker) in the room, you should probably tell me how timing will work as I do not know how you want it.

Tabula rasa within the limits established here. Speed as fine as long as (1) your volume is loud enough for me to hear you and (2) know that I usually give high speaks but will deduct points if you're talking into your laptop. No tricks.

Clash is good. I like creativity and will reward that in the round. A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round. Open to theory but I hate tricks.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins. I will deduct speaker points if you delay the debate over a speech doc is not ready before the round.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

I have been a local parent judge in 2 events in this school year, I do not prefer spreading. I vote based on mainly on evidence and cross. I also will consider theory in deciding who I vote for. I give more importance to cross as it gives me a chance to know how prepared both sides are.

I was an Interper for four years in high school and now I am a debate coach- who would've seen this coming? not me!

Interp: Ah yes my real bread and butter. I love all the interp events but each one has their own niche. I do have some overall comments that apply to all interp events.

Yelling is not an emotion. Before you yell in your interpretation, examine why you are making that choice.

Fake heaving to cry. Either get there and cry or find a different way to emote.

Ensure that if there are multiple characters, each one is distinct and different.

Please make sure that hair is not covering your eyes or your face, your face helps you create and convoy the emotion in your piece! Don't hide it.

HI: In HI I am looking for people who understand how to flow with the writing of their piece and take advantage of their natural comedic timing. If you are utilizing character "pops" ensure that they are crisp and clean. HI should have an energizing performance and maintain that energy throughout.

DI: I am looking for some original material here, DI really has so many options. I dislike fake crying/heaving, it truly takes me out of your performance if you are not making it emotionally to that spot yourself.

Duet and Duo: Here I am looking for strong partnerships, with partners who can work symbiotically off of each other's energy. Your piece should be cut to demonstrate the strength of each partner equally and not so much relying on one partner to carry the team. Again, transitions need to be crisp and clean, and if there are multiple characters, distinction between each one.

Oratory: Give me a call to action at the end and ensure that your resources are current and relevant. Additionally, topic originality is important. If it is a speech or topic I have heard numerous times, ensure that you have made your unique stamp/spin on the information.

Informative: Ensure that your VA's have a purpose and not just showing me pictures, there is big opportunity to make your speech stand out here so do not waste it. Again, originality of topic is important or at least putting your own unique spin/stamp on the issue at hand.

DEBATE:You can include me on the email chain if you prefer- bdomino1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Do not spread- the roots of this organization is to use research and critical thinking skills- you do not achieve these goals by reading as fast as you can off of a sheet of paper, in an effort to fool or lose your opponent. Spreading is weak sauce.

You really should weigh the round for me- if you do not tell me why you should be chosen over your opponent, then I am going to assume you do not know why you should win the round either.

Sharing a last name from your research means nothing to me if you are not summarizing and presenting that research. Much like I tell my students in the classroom, do not just name drop and expect me to understand the significance of your evidence if you do not share it with me.

I take good sportsmanship seriously- if you are purposefully mean or condescending, or display any acts of homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism I will give you low speaks and have no problem discussing my reasoning why with your coach.

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.

Send me speech docs: xduan66@yahoo.com

This is my first experience as a judge. I will do my best to give as much feedback (positive and negative) as possible.

Alison Ho (she/her) Paradigms:

I competed in Congress, Extemp, Duet, Duo, LD, OO, Prose, and PF at some point in my debate career for Cypress Park High, and am now a college student at Michigan State University.

---

IE's:

-DI/HI/Poetry/POI/Prose:

I'll be looking at your emotion (voice and facial expressions), intonation, and movements.

Emotions in your voice will be your friend. If you keep the same emotion and intonation throughout your piece, I'll get bored. I want inflections in your tone, I want to see you immerse yourself in your characters. Example: if it's a sad piece, make me cry.

Speaking of characters, I want them to be distinguishable otherwise confusion happens and I'll get lost.

Give me some energy and confidence in your story. A decrease in confidence is also a decrease in my focus, fake it till you make it.

Keep my attention throughout will the aforementioned.

Watch your hand movements and body language. Keep all movements purposeful and meaningful.

-Duet/Duo:

My partner and I qualified and competed in the 2020 TFA State Tournament for Duo.

Same for the events above.

I'll also be looking at how well you and your partner work together. Example: I love synchronized movements and words.

-Extemp:

I competed in Extemp in both TFA and UIL tournaments.

Give me the information in a clear, concise, and organized manner.

I usually look for around 4-7 pieces of evidence. More is always good, less is not so much.

Every movement = purposeful and meaningful.

-Info/OO:

I love jokes and creativity to keep me focused.

Mainstream or overused topics should be presented in a way that is different than all the others.

Speech must be presented in a clear, concise, and organized manner that makes it easy to follow.

Inflections and tone of voice must not be consistent. I want them strategically placed.

Every movement = purposeful and meaningful.

---

Debate:

-LD:

I highly dislike spreading, as in, you can talk as fast as you want as long as it's understandable to your opponent and me, and you aren't hyperventilating between words when you're catching your breath. I want you to be clear and concise. Seriously, I'm a college student in Zoom classes all day, cut me some slack.

I am a more traditional LD debater, so I want value and value criterion. Though theory and k are okay too, anything other will require some extreme explanation for me to be able to follow, but I want you to be comfortable.

I'll be judging based on how well you maintain your arguments and clash. To be honest, as long as your opponent and I can follow along, then all's good.

I want you both to be respectful, especially during CX: don't cut each other off, but if they are droning on for too long, you may intervene.

Framework, roadmaps, and voters = a happy judge.

-PF:

My PF is a little rusty, but I am familiar with the event.

I dislike spreading, be clear and concise with your arguments and speeches. Talking fast is okay as long as your opponents and I can follow along.

I love CX and clash. As long as the clash is respectful: don't cut each other off, but if they are taking up time for too long, you may intervene respectfully.

I like specific arguments over generic arguments. Give me examples instead of a general statement.

I am a senior at GW with a major in Environmental Studies and Sustainability. I have 5 years of experience in both PF and extemp. I appreciate big picture arguments, especially in the final focus. Weighing is extremely important to me in all speeches, but especially in the rebuttal and summary.

I have no debate experience, so please speak slowly and enunciate well.

PF Judging:

Prefer a more lay approach to a highly technical one, but I'll follow either because ultimately, what I am looking for is for you to present an argument that is fully developed with claims + warrants that can be analyzed & weighed. When I say lay, I really mean a big picture understanding of the round as opposed to strictly line-by-line. Tell me why you are winning the most important argument in the round.

I'll judge the round on what you provide, but please make this a good round by providing effective impacts + warrants that are accurate and reflective of the evidence. Evidence should support your analytical claims, not serve as entire placeholders for argumentation.

Your case is not perfect. Neither is your opponent's case. Provide a weighing mechanism to judge the most important argument(s).

Disclosing is good. You make my round/flow much easier by providing your case beforehand. You can share it with me at aaron.markham@duchesne.org +.5 speaks for doing so.

Use evidence truthfully. If you are abusing the intent or meaning of the author of a piece of evidence, or you cannot provide an accurate card in a reasonable time, I consider that a violation of the overall educational pursuit of this format. I will vote you down.

IE: (less experience here than the debate side, but I do truly love these events and the possibilities they offer...)

Looking for an authentic delivery of a purposeful speech that is meaningful to you. By that, I'm not looking specific speech "checklist/tropes" but a speech that I can connect with through your delivery and overall structure. Your speech should be organized, logical, and purposeful. I should clearly see warrants/citations and be able to follow your argument and impacts in OO, or believe your characters/structure/editing choices in Interp as meaningful and deliberate, or any other mechanism that allows me to see your best abilities as a speaker and performer that can connect with the audience in the same "meaningful and deliberate" manner as you approached your IE.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.

I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to shail21_21@yahoo.com

Thanks and I hope for a good debate!

Public Forum:

I am a tech>truth and flow judge. I am okay with spreading during your speeches however as I am a flow judge I will vote on arguments that I have on my flow sheet, with that being said please be mindful of the clarity of your speech and arguments. Please have your cards ready when asked to present by the team so that there is no unnecessary time wasted. Make sure to not only focus on the argument presented but also the deliverance of your speeches. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap before going into a speech.

I am a PF former debater and know flow. Content and evidence are key for me. I will be paying close attention to each sides' contentions and their ability to refute the other team using evidence. Policy impact, human impact, and financial cost are points that I will be listening for. Aff you need to frontline your case and you need to go on offense. You cannot win on defense alone. Neg you need to delink, turn, and otherwise attack the case by Aff. I know the language of debate so don't be afraid to use it but you won't insult me by making sure a particularly crucial point is clear.  Make sure you signpost your case.  If I cannot understand it then I cannot weigh it.

I am flexible on speaker points but it will be hard to earn a 30. I am willing to split speaker points -- i.e. 29.5. Today's style of debate tends to emphasize speed over effective delivery. I prefer to be able to clearly follow the contentions made by each team so move quickly but be clear. If I cannot follow and flow your contentions then you lose. So, slow down! I also expect professionalism from all participants. Attack your opponents' points not them.

I like voters so tell me why I should vote for you.

Show me that you understand the big picture (why is your side the better choice) of your topic and can extend through to summary while refuting your opponents' contentions and you will earn my ballot. Weighing your impacts will help me see that you should win.

Pet Peeves: Exchange evidence during Prep and ask about it during Crossfire. Do not disrupt the debate by stopping to exchange evidence between speakers! This is a stalling tactic and disrupts the flow of the debate. You will be penalized for this.

Hey! My name is Jyothika Rajagopalan and I competed for all four years of my high school career at local, state, and qualified for nationals. I am well experienced in the speech/interpretation events, however, I do know the basics of debate events. I have very high knowledge in Informative and Oratory, but also participated in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglass, Dramatic Interpretation, and various others. My paradigms are as follows:

Speech: As for extemporaneous speaking, I side by information and analysis over presentation. As for other Interpretation and speaking events, it is all about presentation and attitude.

Debate: I can flow, but not too fast, so I would appreciate if there isn't too much spreading involved. I will time, but I would expect debaters to time as well, be responsible. No arguments while a debater is talking, there will be consequences. I will flow what is during speeches and not during crossfire. However, I would like you to extend your arguments from crossfires, if you want to. I want the crossfires to be respectful, so do not be rude to your opponents, or that will affect your speaker points. If I seem confused regarding the layout, K, theory, etc, just ask and explain it to me beforehand, and all is good.

I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.

Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.

Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!

Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.

Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!

Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.

Experience: Klein High Debate 2011-2015, graduate of Johns Hopkins University, BA in Public Health Studies

Speaking: Speaking quickly is fine, as long as you're clear.

Weighing: If two arguments/ pieces of evidence are directly in clash, you need to explain why I should weigh/value your evidence or argument over your opponent's.

Extensions: Make sure you extend dropped arguments through the final focus-- too many debaters extend arguments in the summary and forget about them in the final focus. Warrant your arguments as well. If there's not a reason to buy your argument, I won't.

Arguments: Impacting your arguments is key, as is weighing those impacts with your opponent's. I am willing to evaluate any argument I hear in the round.

Overall, weighing your arguments and extending them throughout the debate is the way to win my ballot. I vote strictly off the flow, so as long as you do what I mentioned above, you'll win my ballot.

This is how I usually like debates to go.

I like them in order so no skipping Grand cross

Please state your contention before moving on

EX: Contention 2: Worldwide income

then you can continue with your speech

SPEAK SLOW ENOUGH FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND

This is probably going to be what decides the round because I don't have much experience

Also

State your impacts as clear and short as you can

Always weigh

claim-warrant-impact

The simpler your contentions are, the better.

I am new to judging, please speak slower than usual.