Pronouns: She/They

I am a previous competitor of 2 years at Desert Ridge High School and competed in almost every event during that time at least once. I now compete with Howard University's speech and debate team. 

The main thing I look at with Congress, PF, and LD is argumentation over the way you speak. Often times I see students speak well, but what they say lacks correlation. Obviously if you speak well on top of good argumentation then that will help you place higher in congress and win my ballot in LD and PF.

Try to use well researched arguments and always have specific sources to back up said arguments. Also, assume that I am not educated on whatever topic you are debating and do not try to skip steps when explaining, make sure your thought process is clear.

Be respectful when addressing your fellow representatives and opponents. We all like to win, but do it with grace.

I want to see everyone improve, so I leave mainly critiques on ballots to benefit you.

TL;DR: Just look at the bolded stuff in the Flow Section if you don't want to read everything.

Background: I debated 4 four years in high school in Public Forum Debate (2016-2020). I dabbled in Extemp.

Lay Stuff:

Don’t be a jerk, otherwise I'm going to give you low speaks and a low point win if you happen to win by flow. If you are any type of -ist in round or has an argument that is- you are dropped. Be inclusive and kind

Speed = fine, but I will say “clear” and stop flowing if too fast.

Speaks: high avg speaks if you do everything right- 28. Ill drop speaks if you are not civil, have an abusive argument/fw. If u make me laugh/snicker +.5 speaks. Also if you do key voters right +.5 speaks.

Clipped or Falsified Evidence = drop, be ethical, stop clipping

Time yourselves and hold each other and your opponents accountable.

CX: it’s for you guys to clarify things/poke holes (it's ok to use it to clarify, don't feel bad). I may listen I may not, I'm still not gonna flow it either way. Whatever you or your opponent says that is important in CX better be brought up in speech otherwise it doesn’t count. Don’t be abusive with follow up questions.

Flow stuff:

I really don't care for Rhetoric heavy debate, just get to the point. I want clash and clear warranting.

I expect 2nd rebuttal to respond to the first rebuttal responses. (The fact that some people don't do this is weird to me).

SIGNPOST WHEREVER YOU GO, it’s a basic skill every debater needs to do.

In general I prefer the Quality > Quantity of responses. Please Don't Card Bomb Me.

Don’t flow through red ink, I will likely catch you and what you say won’t be counted in round. Additionally I have a pet peeve of saying “flow through contention 1” or "flow through smith 19" and then moving on, u better explain to me exactly how your contention/warrant/card actually flows through and what the argument/content is.

I like Key Voters but if you don’t know how to do them I’m fine with down the flow as long as u signpost and condense/collapse well. In Summary since it’s now 3 minutes, I want some weighing analysis at the end, but there should be more weighing in FF.

In your final speeches (esp Summary): Extend your warrants otherwise I am not giving you access to your impacts. If something is brought up in FF that isn't in Summary, it doesn't count- don't flow through red ink, and be consistent with your partner.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING GOOD WEIGH IN YOUR FINAL SPEECHES. If you don’t weigh you essentially leave it up to my opinion on what I value the most. If you guys can use and talk about multiple weighing mechanisms like the probability, scope, time-frame, magnitude of your impacts in relation to each other, and which mechanism should be preferred over the other- you'll catch my interest. Alongside any logical fallacy names like; “slippery slope”, and “straw man”.

Also you can definitely talk about cards and methodology in your speeches. Just don't let evidence debate be all that the debate boils down to. I may ask for and read for critical cards after the debate too, regardless of evidence debate.

Ill probably disclose at the end if you made the debate clean and easy (and if I am allowed to) but if not I detail the ballot.

Framework/Nontraditional stuff:

Don’t ever give me a “framework is utilitarianism” in case because that is inherently what Public Forum debate is (you can use it as a response in rebuttal and so on). This also goes for "Cost Benefit Analysis" if it is in the resolution. That being said I welcome non traditional frameworks and interpretations of the resolutions that have a rational basis that you can explain well and have cards to back up. I really enjoy and love fw debates. Also shouldn't be an abusive fw.

Please respond to your opponents framework if they have one, cuz that could ultimately cost you the round.

I'd rather not judge a K/theory/plans in PF please (don't really know about them in depth anyway). Although I would rather not judge it, I am open to hearing these Kritiks/Theory but you will need to be able to explain VERY clearly and how it works in round not only to me but your opponents, because if they don't know what you are doing it kind of ends up being abusive cuz they can't or don't know how to respond to them. If you end up using progressive debate techniques in PF I hope it is supplemental to traditional debate cuz as I said above I have a very loose understanding of this stuff and would likely be a time waste.

Plans are not allowed in PF (NSDA Rule). You can have a advocacy (NOT A PLAN- difference is in a plan you specify how you are going through with it, advocacy is just a general recommendation) as long as u can explain how it makes sense under the resolution in round (not after when u are trying to persuade me). Also make sure its not overly abusive to your opponents and puts them in a corner where they can't get out, that ties into being a jerk.

Feel free to ask me questions about any of this or something not here.

I have always viewed argument as the search for truth. I feel like arguments are best when centered around logic and credibility, with the pathos appeal only being effective as a means of setting up or closing out the main ideas.

The end game in an argument in my opinion is not necessarily to find a winner and a loser, rather it is which side came the closest to a logical truth at the end of the process.

As a fan of logic, I am also on the lookout for logical fallacies. To me, logical fallacies may be used accidentally but are still subject to discrimination.

I am more impressed by the accuracy of vocabulary than the use of words for any other purpose than to inform. The form and development ideas is of the utmost importance, as I view through the lens of public discourse.

This (Jan. 22) will be my first time judging.

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

I am more or less a flow judge in policy. It’s okay to talk fast but if I can’t understand what you’re saying then you’ve probably dropped an argument.

Fast paced speech is acceptable, however, I do need to be able to understand what is being said so that I may incorporate your points into scoring. Too fast might equate to the legal disclaimer at the end of a commercial.

I am a parent judge.

Speak slowly and clearly, and have a clean debate.

I do not wish to be part of an email chain or online document.

Feedback will be in the ballot. Please leave after the debate has ended.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

Hi, I'm Hanna (she/her/hers)! I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to share your preferred pronouns with me and the other team at the beginning of the round so we can all be respectful of one another!

As a competitor, I participated in Humorous Interpretation (my nationals event), Duo Interpretation, and Original Oratory. As a coach, I continued to work with interp events and oratory as well. Despite the fact I've never personally competed in PF, I have watched many rounds so I have a solid understanding of how things work. I also keep up with politics and current events in my free-time, so I'm not completely out of the loop.

I recently graduated from Arizona State University with a B.A. in Communication, a minor in Women and Gender Studies, and a certificate in Civil Communication. That being said, you should be clear and concise (you can speak fast-ish if that's you're style, but NOT policy fast lol), don't make any discriminatory comments (I won't tolerate that), and be generally kind to one another (attack ideas, not each other!).

Overall, you should know I have a great appreciation for excellent public speaking skills and easy to follow arguments. I'm also a pretty nice and understanding person so if you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to bring them to my attention! :)

I am a flay judge. I judged PF and BQ.

Truth > Tech

If there's no offense at the end of the round, I presume Neg.

Except for frontlining and weighing, DO NOT bring up any new arguments in summary.

I flow everything except for final and cross. You can talk fast, but don't spread.

I do not evaluate cross. Maintain civil discourse and if you want me to know something that happened in cross, bring it up in a speech.

Don’t go overboard with debate terminology; no progressive arguments.

You can curse in round just don’t go too overboard.

I will immediately drop you if you say anything sexist, racist, homophobic etc.

If you don’t have an impact I will not evaluate that argument.

Do not misconstrue evidence.

If you are reading something graphic, you MUST give a content warning. If not I will either doc speaks and make it extremely hard for you to win or I will just plain out drop you. It just depends on how graphic it is.

I will drop the argument if you don’t weigh.

I am fine if you go a bit overtime and you get five minutes of prep instead of three.

Speaks:

I’ll give +1 speak if you do a Star Wars reference.

I will dock speaks and I won’t evaluate the arguments if you talk too fast. If you need to, send me a speech doc and I will evaluate the argument, though I will still dock speaks.

New judge for debate. Please go at a reasonable pace and avoid complicated debate jargons.

Decision for the round will be based on all individual arguments won with focus on logic/reasoning, evidence and communication.

I expect the debaters to weigh in the round with key arguments and dropped contentions at the end.

This is my first time as a Speech & Debate judge I am honored to help out. I believe speech and debate is a good, competitive way to present opinions/arguments in a thoughtful, honest & respectful manner by addressing the topic using sources which support the sides points of view.

As I have never judged nor competed in Speech & Debate events, I am not familiar with the jargon however I will be attentive and respectful of all participants/teams. I have experience with supervision, coaching and training so I will use my skills of listening, attentiveness and providing feedback to assist as a judge.

I mainly did PF for 3 years in high school and I have also judged LD many times in the past. I would very much like it if you did some impact calc as it helps me a lot in knowing what to weigh more. Also, if you're planning on using speed and/or spreading, please send your case over to me so I can flow more effectively. Otherwise I can't guarantee everything will be flowed. I would strongly prefer if you can cross-time prep as well as speech times. If you're a progressive debater and you won't do traditional, strike me, it will make it easier for everybody. I will not hesitate to dock your speaker points if you are being unnecessarily rude, or if you are sexist, racist, or bigoted in any way.

Basically just don't make this overly convoluted and make it easy for me to flow the round and keep track of what I'm weighing. Good luck and I look forward to judging for you! :)

This is my first year in coaching debate and judging at tournaments.

During a debate, the things I look for and appreciate include:

-solid arguments that are backed by evidence

-ability to defend an argument during crossfire and in rebuttal

-ability to ask good questions in crossfire

The things that I do not like to see in a debate:

-talking too fast

-talking over an opponent

-yelling

I do enjoy conversational speed of delivering an opinion or speech. One doesn't have to be loud to be heard. I'm interested in seeing interaction and engagement. 

I'm a current law student but am a former high school debate competitor and collegiate speech competitor. I have the greatest amount of coaching and judging in experience in LD but have judged PF for the last five years.

I keep a detailed flow of the round and ask that warrants be extended on key arguments you extend throughout the debate.

Please be respectful in crossfire/cx.

I find rounds work best when debaters also time themselves and cross time their opponents.

In order to reduce the likelihood of any technical issues, I ask that you take necessary precautions (e.g. quitting programs not needed on your computer, testing your WiFi connection, etc.).

Please feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round starts so we begin on time. Thank you, and good luck!

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

I'm a new judge. Please don't spread, please speak clearly. Make sure to sign post and warrant all your impacts.

PF

PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech

Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]"

Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why

BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents

let me know if you have questions.

LD

I have gotten very dumb in my old age (22) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.

(she/her)

Hi! My name is Carrie, I debated PF for three years, with some experience in Congress and LD.

Things you probably already know, but I'll just state anyway:

Speed - Just make it understandable, I'm pretty fine with any speed, but don't go so fast that you're making it more difficult for yourself.

Decorum - have it. Talking over people is not cute.

CX - I don't flow it, I don't care about it. If you want to use anything in CX mention it in the speech directly after that CX. also. see Decorum.

Summaries and Final Focus - SIGNPOST. Use your key voters, crystalize your argument, give me no other option but to circle the ballot for you.

Clean debates = easy decisions. You don’t want your debate to end up in a coin flip (I'm not above doing this).

Do not pick up dropped arguments, don’t.

That being said, this should be fun and a learning experience! Ask questions if you need them, I'll do my best to answer them. Good Luck!

I am a Program/Agile manager at Cisco. I have judged quite a many rounds for Public Forum and enjoy listening to everyone's speeches.

I like standards and collapsing into your opponents frameworks.

I enjoy seeing weighing and word to word comparisons either in summary or final focus. Final Focus I mainiy look for voters issues, and if u bring up dropped arguments I wont count them.

I also look for good impact and links and extending main arguments to the end of your cases. And good warrants with statistics such as percentages or ratios. Good solvencies are also important to show me why your world solves better for the resolution.

I would prefer sign posting so its easier for me to keep track of arguments and also prefer slow speaking so its easier for me to follow and take notes. Speaking too fast also doesn't help make clarity in arguments.

I also look for more direct responses and in crossfire I look for open ended questions that help me better understand your side of the resolution.

Overall confidence , good mannerism,voive modulation is the key.I prefer team on video as expressions matter in debating:)

I am a former policy debater and current speech and debate coach. I coach policy, LD, and PF. I am a flow judge. I want to see good communication in round.

1. Parent judge. Judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates previously.
2. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything clearly.
3. Please refrain from speaking over your opponents during cross.

TL;DR

I know stuff.

Bio (Completely Irrelevant)

I competed in PF for four years at Hamilton High School (2014-2018). In my senior year I was the captain of the team. I competed a lot on the AZ local circuit, and won/placed at a bunch of tournaments. I also competed a bit on the national circuit (broke boi couldn't afford all the plane tickets in HS), and have dabbled in Policy and Big Questions debate. Finally, I've also competed in the International Public Policy forum and achieved global Top 16 alongside my team. Today, I'm a student studying Computer Science and Physics at ASU.

Speed/Speaking

1. I can comprehend up to 275 words per minute, but my most accurate flowing happens at about 225 words per minute and under. Be smart about your word economy. If you can say it slower and make the same goddamn point just as effectively, do that. Do not sacrifice clarity for "speed" (I say "speed" because when you're messing up so much because you're trying to go faster than you're meant to, your effective speed is actually super slow.) Do not use the Gish gallop, this will annoy me severely.

2. I reserve the right to yell "CLEAR" at any point in the round; if I do, that means something with your speaking isn't working for me and it needs to be fixed; it could be speed, volume, enunciation, slurring, etc. I don't do this to be a jerk, I do it because I actually want to hear what you have to say. However, don't rely on my yelling of "CLEAR" as an absolute metric though, because you might just not be egregious enough for me to say it. If I look confuzzled or like I'm not understanding what's going on, that is likely the case.

3. There are a myriad of references you can make that will bump up your speaker points if they are eloquently incorporated into your speech: PewDiePie, Speedcubing, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti, Future, Juice WRLD, Eminem, Deadpool, Mr. Robot, or Avatar (NOT the blue aliens one). Saying "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the end of the speech is no longer novel to me, and I won't count it.

Cross-Ex

0. As a general rule, cross is for you, not me.

1. I will not judge on what is said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. (I do actually listen though - even if I'm walking around, eating, etc. - unless it's mind-numbing, which happens fairly frequently).

2. Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case, I don't frown on that. Don't be afraid to ask why; at best, their reasoning will be moronic and easy to dismantle, and at worst, we all learn something.

3. Don't go back and forth and waste time during cross. (But depth is awesome and absolutely necessary, don't misconstrue the two).

4. I don't see "my partner will answer this in speech" as a weakness if it's because the idea takes a bit to explain or if you already know your partner will expound on an idea you briefly mention, but I might still smile at it, because it's memey. But if it's a question that you should be able to answer, then that's probably a problem.

5. When someone asks for an explanation of a warrant, "we have a card for that" is not an appropriate answer. This is also true for the round in general, not just CX. ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS; if the answer wouldn't have been satisfying for you then it's likely not satisfying for me either. A card is not a warrant in and of itself.

6. Standing or sitting, don't care. Do a handstand if you want.

7. First speaking team gets the first question, no need to ask, just get into it.

8. Towards the end of cross, y'all can reserve the right to end it if there's nothing to talk about, and just prep instead during that time (for a MAX of thirty seconds) (especially GCX).

Timing

1. Please time yourself. I basically always forget, so please keep track of yourselves and each other (that goes for speech AND prep).

2. If you need to verbally let me know your opponent is going over time, that's fine (just give them like 4 seconds of grace period). You can avoid all of the ambiguity by just using a timer that actually goes off at the end of the speech too.

Etiquette

1. Try to get to the round on time (I will too). If you need time in the room to get your stuff together, or pre-flow, I'm totally cool with that, I just don't want to accidentally tell Tabroom you don't exist (same reason I'll try to be there on time). But again, s*** happens, so I'm gonna try not to be annoying about time, as much as possible.

2. I like Aff on my left, Neg on my right. The world will not end if this is not true, however.

3. I’m not uptight; I like a chill vibe in rounds. I like judging rounds where everyone's actually having fun (especially me). Good jokes are great, bad jokes are colossal failures. (If you can make your opponents' argument seem so ridiculous that it's funny, you're probably being quite convincing). I encourage being savage, but in a tasteful-ish manner. Being savage is not the same as being petulant.

4. You can swear, I don’t care. Actually, I'll probably like it, especially if it helps with your rhetorical efficacy.

5. I’d rather not shake hands. Shaking hands with me won’t magically help or hurt your chances of winning, but it could get either of us sick.

Debate-y Stuff

1. Signpost everything, for the love of music, video games, Netflix, pets, and parents. I literally don’t know where to put stuff if you don’t signpost (and then I won't write anything, and it'll be your fault).

a. If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and what happens to offense as a result.

b. If you're frontlining a response, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to, and what I need to extend as a result of this frontline.

2. Structure responses in a systematic manner, at the least. I really prefer numbered responses in rebuttals and I like numbered frontlines in the summaries and second rebuttals (this makes it easier to reference which response we're talking about at any point).

3. Please extend arguments throughout both Summ/FF speeches consistently, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. However, you don't have to yell "extend" before everything you extend (because that’s annoying), just contextualize the argument and why I should extend it.

4. If you’re not frontlining, you will probably auto-lose the round, because I want to watch an actual debate.

5. I like to have a roadmap before speeches, but it should NOT be flowery. For example: “framework, aff case, neg case.” If you’re doing something weird though, let me know. In most cases, I just want to know which side of the flow we're starting on.

6. There’s no reason to "extend" your own case in rebuttal if "time permits" if you’re the first speaking team. I don’t get why debaters do this, but it’s a waste, and I WILL drop speaker points for this.

7. 2nd rebuttal should address the 1st rebuttal.

8. 1st summary should address the 2nd rebuttal.

9. I’m cool with overviews.

a. If an overview applies to an argument specifically, remind me of the overview and cross apply it.

b. Your overview shouldn’t just be another contention though, that’s not the point.

10. If you read a definition, actually make it useful for your case. "But bro, they didn't have a definition, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

11. Frameworks can be as important as you make them.

a. If your frameworks agree, just stop mentioning it, I’ll use it.

b. Weighing really helps to solidify a ballot, and a carded weighing analysis can really help with that. Also, you NEED to tell me how to weigh unlike things; it's easy to say $200 million is more than $170 million, but we all know this is rarely how debate functions. If you don't convince me of a way to adjudicate the round, I don't know what the hell to do.

c. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

12. ALL offense must be in summary.

a. The first summary does not need to include defense unless this defense has been frontlined already.

b. However, turns must be in summary, otherwise they will end up only being terminal defense. (Otherwise it's abusive, the other team needs to know what you're going for).

13. I hate key voters, they obfuscate the round for me. Instead keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially line-by-line, but don't think saying card names aimlessly is going to mean anything, so don't card dump).

14. I GREATLY encourage collapsing. Kick an argument and instead show me why the one you go for is enough for the win. (You can’t kick an argument with a turn on it and expect things to be okay for you though, obviously.)

15. Please verbally label turns explicitly. It really helps me to see how you get offense on your opponent’s case. (Like actually say the word "turn" or something very similar).

16. Don’t give me a specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan).

17. Don’t give me a random alt on the Neg.

18. Please don’t strawman, make sure you respond to the actual arguments your opponents are making. That's the number one way to get me to tune out quickly.

19. K's might not be the best idea because I default to post-fiat impacts. The only way you'll win with a K is if you actually convince ME I should go pre-fiat or your K solves in a post-fiat analysis.

20. I don't flow card names for the most part, so make sure to tell me what the card says.

21. I love creative, innovative, eye-opening, deep arguments that come from another angle. I hate stupid, nonsensical arguments that disguise themselves as novel when they're not. Running one of those will get you yeeted. Logic actually matters, people. (This isn't to say I'm not tabula rasa, I really am very close. The point I'm making is that my threshold for refuting inherently ridiculous arguments is inherently lower than those that actually make sense, so you're handicapping yourself severely within the context of the round by running something we all know is dumb. For example, if the Aff tells me that "elephants are purple" and the Neg responds with "no," I will consider that an effective response. Remember, in the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and if you're giving me less-than-extraordinary evidence, you're screwed, because your opponents are probably smarter than your "argument").

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. If you want to know how you're doing in a round, look at me, chances are that'll give you some information because my face can be very telling. I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. I will almost always disclose, and I will provide a detailed verbal RFD, which often includes a significant degree of roasting. You can ask me questions after the round about anything, but don't argue with me, because I will submit my ballot before I disclose. Good luck.

Almost all my debate judging has been in PF, so please understand I am not familiar with jargon or terms for other debate disciplines. Also, please speak slowly and clearly enough so that I can understand you. Be kind and civil with your opponents. Thank you!

Debate: Please remember I don't have the preparation you do, so talk slow and be understandable. I most likely won't let you know you're going too fast in a round, only after in my comments. I'm not knowledgeable of debate jargon/abbreviations, so please clarify and assume I have no previous knowledge of what you're talking about. I will time you if I remember, but to be safe, time yourself and your opponents (if you don't want them taking extra time). Otherwise, just be respectful and have fun.

I am a historian of the classical Greek and Roman period, and I have a lot of experience with classical rhetoric. I often think of arguments through the lens of classical rhetoric. I am looking to be persuaded by arguments. I consider whoever wins the most arguments to have won the round. Additionally, I am not looking for speed but rather clear explanation of argument.

I am a historian of the classical Greek and Roman period, and I have a lot of experience with classical rhetoric. I often think of arguments through the lens of classical rhetoric. I am looking to be persuaded by arguments. I consider whoever wins the most arguments to have won the round. Additionally, I am not looking for speed but rather clear explanation of argument.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Speak slowly and clearly.

Offer a clear framework with clean, simple definitions. Don't assume any kind of knowledge, and don't speak super fast. Be kind, be respectful, and treat others well-- I do take into consideration attitude, and will mark off for poor or unkind behavior.

First time judge. Please provide any instructions for me at the beginning of the round (i.e. help with keeping time). Please speak as clearly as possible. I will be objective in my judging and provide constructive feedback as much as possible.

I am a 6th year coach who did not compete in Speech and Debate as a student. I am more experienced in speech events than debate events, though I have coached the basics in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Questions. While I understand the conventions and some theory of debate, I judge as an educated member of the public. I want to hear a good story that proves to me why your side of the case makes the most sense. I listen first to understand, then to decide. Therefore, it is crucial that you speak clearly and naturally. I do not appreciate spreading. I am listening for the links between evidence and claim and decide based on which side presents and maintains the strongest arguments. I do not disclose, but am happy to give objective feedback if you ask.

For platform speaking events, I am interested more in structure than in style. A well-organized, well-supported performance will win my vote over a flashy presentation style. That being said, an overall effect in interpretation and platform events that brings me on an emotional or intellectual journey will always rank highest.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

be respectful- any sexism, racism, etc will mean an auto drop. above everything, everyone should feel comfortable in round

wear whatever shoes or clothes you're comfortable in, you dont have to look "professional"

weigh extend collapse

pls signpost - no offtime road maps unless youre doing something special

the most important thing you can do to win is weigh. tell me why your impacts matter and why as a judge should care about your impacts over your opponents

if offense is not in your summary, I wont weigh it in your final focus. make sure to extend the warranting for your argument instead of just saying "extend this". also if you wanna win the argument make sure you frontlined it, pls dont flow through ink

1st summary only needs to extend defense on args frontlined in 2nd rebuttal

turns must be responded to in the next speech

cant put defense on previously unresponded arguments in summary

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline arguments you are probably going for in summary but not mandatory (still must respond to turns)

dont go for every argument- collapse on 1 or 2

quality of arguments > quantity

well warranted arguments > cards

if something is not clear, its probably your fault and not mine, especially if its the main argument your going for. overexplaining >> underexplaining

i wont read/call for cards unless I am told to or if there was no warrant comparison done in round (but its better to not let me do that)

the faster you go, the worse my flowing skills become

im not the best judge for progressive arguments, but if you warrant them well/there is a blatant abuse then I will try my best to judge it( but I dont have much experience w it so be cautious)

I am a business professional with an MBA in Finance and Information Systems. I am currently a Marketing professional. Because of my Finance training I am focused on facts. When reading cards please site where you go the card from.

If you send cards via chat please tell me in a main speech if you would like me to look them over for me to take into consideration. Specifically indicate where your argument is, in the article.

I would like you to speak in a clear organized manner, I understand there is a timer but do not talk faster than a medium pace.

You are responsible for your own time and coin flip.

Do not talk over your opponents.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Follow the debate structure and rules.

As well I don't like spreading in Public Forum Debate.

Card clipping will lead to an automatic loss

Hey I'm Bena.

I did PF for 4 years in HS and some congress, big questions, world schools

I can handle pretty much whatever.

pronouns: she/ her

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

Mubariz Tahirkheli (Pronounced Moo-bar-is Tar-Kelly)

Please add me to the email chain: mtahirkheli20@gmail.com

Experience and Overview: I was a 4 year Policy Debater and Original Orator at The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City, Missouri. I graduated from Pembroke Hill in 2020, and I am now attending Washington University in St. Louis, though I am not participating in any college level speech or debate program as of now. My debate experience was in a lay-centered circuit, but I occasionally had slow flow and fast flow rounds when it came down to it. I qualified to NSDA nationals in Policy my senior year, but my school opted out due to the online format. I have now judged Varsity Policy, Novice LD, PFD, and Policy. Most of my preferences on argumentation on here are about Policy, so if I am judging you in another event, make sure to ask me any questions!

TLDR:

Clarity is the most important part of debate for me. I will try my best to understand the argument you present, no matter its complexity, but if you aren't clear enough in your delivery or the explanation, it may as well not be an argument. I prefer policy to K debate, but do what you want. Again, I'm trying to be open minded to all arguments. There are specific arguments I might not be able to handle, but you'll need to read on to learn more.

General:

Speed: With the aid of the speech documents, I can handle flowing rounds up to speeds of 300-350 words per minute, but so long as you are clear. Honestly, if you really like, you can go faster if you are extremely clear, but I might tell you "clear" so slow down if I do. Clarity is the most important part of delivery to me. Please be respectful to your opponents on the matter of speed as well, don't spread if they are not up for it. As to what speed I prefer, rounds in which everyone is speaking at a pace of 240-300 is ideal. One note on speed I will reiterate later on: if you are reading high theory or critical positions, I would prefer you don't spread them (max 225-230 wpm). I really want to understand the position you read without making any limitations to what you can and cannot read, so that is one wish, above all, I hope you all can fulfill for me.

Signposting: If you don't signpost to the point where your speed drastically decreases and is extremely clear you're moving from one card or argument to the next, don't blame me for missing it on the flow.

Overviews and Extension: I don't think you need to say "Extend ____ in 20" at the top of the flow so long as at the top of the flow you give a good story and explanation of the page of flow. I think saying "Extend/Cross-apply ____ in 20," or some other form, is necessary when you're trying to answer a newly made argument with a card you already read.

If you are winning the flow absolutely, but you are being disrespectful, racist, discriminatory, etc, I won't vote for you (this includes to your own partner). I've seen and heard of too many people in my circuit giving up on debate because of the toxic environment, and I cannot endorse such a bad representation of the activity.

Arguments:

Topicality: T was one of my favorite arguments to run and write cases of in high school, but I only ever ran it when I knew it made absolute sense. If you run T, you should know how to run it. Topicality for me is mostly about the interpretations and how they are a measure of good debate. So, mainly focus on developing your interpretations with strong analytics on standards and voters. One note worthy of mentioning is that you should run T not as to overwhelm your opponent, but to actually promote good debate and clash on whether the AFF is topical. I would hate to write an RFD in which I think the AFF is reasonably topical, but they lost the Topicality flow.

Framework: For me, framework is its own page of flow and in order to win it, you need to have in-depth analysis on your FW and the opponent's FW. Don't read a lot of cards on framework in the 1AC, two or three should be the max.

DAs: Specific links are the way to go unless you can make a generic link work with enough analysis (one CX concession won't usually work for me). I dislike DAs that have a link/IL/impact story that become really long. You really have to do a lot of work if you want to read a link/IL/impact story like this for me to vote on it.

CPs: You have to really explain the severance perm should you decide to read one. I don't think you should read an intrinsicness perm with me as the judge as I have only heard of them and never debated one and don't know the theory arguments on them. I prefer if you have solvency advocates of the CP. I will choose to judge kick so long as the situation makes sense. Also, Delay CPs are bad and unfair, I ran them a few times in high school and felt horrible after winning a round with them. They just don't feel legitimate to me.

Performance AFFs: I don't think you should read a Performance AFF in front of me. I have no experience with them.

Ks and Critical AFFs: I have some experience with Ks, and you can run them with me as judge so long as you are clear and don't spread (max 225-250 wpm). The reason I want you to speak slower is so that I understand the arguments and so that a team doesn't have a disadvantage because they are less familiar with the K you are running. I have a particular interest for learning more critical arguments, and I'm sure your opponents do too, so please let this aspect of the round be as fully educational as possible. Please run specific links to Ks, or at least generate a sound link in CX. As for critical AFFs, I have really no experience with them, but feel free to run them so long as you explain ROB and voters as clearly as possible.

Miscellaneous:

Lots of clash on case is ideal

I judge the round usually on how the debaters want me to judge it. You tell me what the voters are. You tell me the role of the ballot.

Hi I am Miranda Vega. I competed in PF debate, Congress, info, and various interp events in high school, and now I am the assistant coach for ACPHS. This will be my 4th year judging debate, so I am looking forward to it! I will disclose quickly after the round if time permits; however, I will not disclose if the tournament directors explicitly tell me not to, or if one of the competitors are not comfortable with it. I do try and provide really extensive feedback within the ballots but for some reason if I forget to finish it or it cuts off please email me @ mirandakathleenvega@gmail.com you put in a lot of time and effort and you deserve your feedback.

(ASU Congress scroll all the way to the bottom)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is some general paradigms I have:

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage, like talking at the speed of light. For this reason, I HATE SPREADING, I think this makes debate inaccessible for the general person, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. This is especially true for debate formats like PF and BQ, as they are meant for lay judges. DONT SPREAD IN PF AND BQ. If you spread in PF or BQ two things will happen. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging the round, and I will not get very much down on the flow which will more likely than not lead to you losing the round. At a certain point I just stop flowing, and as a tech judge you are probably going to get the L. If you are going to spread in LD and CX, that is fine. HOWEVER, you should only be spreading the card text and I should still be able to understand what you are saying. If you are mumbling and I don't know what you are saying then I am not going to understand the evidence being read. You need to slow down on the Contention Names, card names, tags, warrants, and analytics. Spreading anything that isn't card text will ultimately end up with me not really flowing and you, most likely, losing the round. Debate is an oral argument so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. That is why if you are going to spread you only spread card text. Anything else I won't get on the Flow

Evidence Violations:If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuit and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. So make sure your card says what is says and don't misconstrue the evidence. This also includes debater math. You can't just mush two stats together and call it a day.

Cross examination/fire: I never flow this. I am typically writing in the ballot during this time; however, I am still paying a bit of attention to make sure you guys are being respectful to each other. If I notice it is getting out of hand I will give a warning to the person being disrespectful, and if it happens again then I will drop debater. If something completely and horribly disrespectful happens in round (racism, sexism, xenophobia, ableism), I will just drop debater. This is also a period for you to clarify things, not do another rebuttal. CX no tag teaming. The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way anyway 2) that is time that your partner can be prepping. No tag teaming.

Tech>truth: you still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something I am not just going to automatically flow that through. Also, if you run something really far fetched you can, but the second your opponent calls it out as such I am less likely to buy it.

No sticky defense: if you drop an argument it is conceded in the round. That doesn't mean I am just going to automatically flow it to the opposing team. They still have to extend in every speech that it is conceded. If you pick up a dropped argument, I will not weigh it at the end of the round. Generally, when you do that you are wasting time that you can be telling me why you should win the round.

Signpost:Please please please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On their C2, "specific warrant", we have "number" of responses". Or for progressives tell me what part of the progressive you are going to attach. If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible. If you are going to address an argument as a whole TELL ME THAT, and tell me why that should be enough.

Weigh: Tell me why you win! Please weigh for me! If I have to do this you may not like the outcome. Also, it is not enough to tell me "I outweigh therefore I win". How do you outweigh? Are you outweighing on magnitude, scope, timeframe???

Extensions:You MUST extend in every speech. However, just saying EXTEND is not an extension. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over theirs.

Everybody should time their own prep: I am timing speeches and cross. There is no 10 second grace period, I don't know where everyone got this rule from, but it doesn't exist. I stop flowing at the end of the time regardless if you keep speaking.

STAND FOR ALL SPEECHES AND CX PLEASE (exception GCF in PF)

If aff doesn't win enough offense or impacts for me to weigh that offense I presume negation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC FORUM

The paradigms mentioned above are pretty much it.

If no framework is mentioned my default is a cost-benefit analysis.

The team that wins my ballot will tell me why their impacts outweigh the others.

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS. I can't believe that I have to say this, but this is a lay friendly debate format. There is also not enough time to properly run and respond to them. I will drop the argument if it is run. Please just don't I will be so annoyed. If that is something you love to do then join LD or CX, but no progressives in PF.

I don't take prep time for calling and reading cards. That being said. If a card is called and it cant be located within 2 min it is dropped. It should be already cut and easily found. If there is a tech issue that is different. That being said. If you are reading the card don't take an eternity either.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLICY DEBATE

Refer to the general paradigms I listed above.

You can put me on the email chain with my email, but know that I am only flowing what I hear you say. You can spread but ONLY CARD TEXT. You need to slow down on your tags, warrants, impacts etc and for your analysis for why I should extend your argument further in the round. I am NOT going to yell clear, so if you see me stop flowing you need to slow down otherwise you are most likely going to lose the round.

Run whatever you want, just make sure that what ever you are running is formatted correctly.

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST PLEASE I BEG OF YOU For some reason policy people don't sign post enough. If you are reading responses to a disad or the plan you should tell me what parts you are responding to so for example this is what I am expecting:

"Onto the [BLANK] Disadvantage. First onto uniqueness, we have [#] of responses. 1) response response response 2) response response response. Then onto the external link we have [#] of responses" That is what I am expecting when I say signpost.

Any other questions please ask me!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

I think I have judged LD on a circuit only a few times. I judge my LD kids all the time, and judge Policy now on the circuit regularly.

Like I said no spreading but card text. If there is an email chain put me on it, just know that I am only flowing what I hear.

The way I will judge the round is whoever wins under the winning framework. So just because you don't win your framework doesn't mean you can't win the debate. If you can still prove to me that you solve for the standard better than your opponent I will vote for you. That being said I understand that sometimes your arguments may be mutually exclusive from your opponents.

Since I judge policy so often I am fine with progressives run whatever! I am cool with K's, performance K's if you want (just make sure your K's are well linked), any plans or CPs I am cool with.

If you have any other questions please let me know!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS

For the love of all that is holy, this is Congress not debate. Do not use debate jargon. Dont say drop, extend, my opponent, vote aff.... this is Congress you say "pass this bill" or "fail this bill", "my fellow representative/senator" etc...

PLEASE TAKE YOUR SPLITS BEFORE THE ROUND! My biggest pet peeve judging Congress is when y'all agree on a docket, and there is no first aff or neg. And you have to take a bunch of 1 minute recesses. Those are also a pet peeve.

I really do not like rehash, at a certain point in the cycle you need to start doing rebuttal speeches and if you are all the way at the end of the cycle then do a crystallization speech.

Try not to rely heavily on your legal pad.

The more you sound like a Congress person the better you will rank. Rhetoric is your best friend.

I will rank PO pretty high if you do a good job. I won't rank PO in the top 6 though if there are A LOT of precedence and recency errors.

This is what I watch out for

Volume of words does not mean much if provable facts/cards are not presented

Speak slowly and clearly - Absolutely no spreading

Flow your points all the way through

Make sure you address each point you claim, with good evidence, and also why it matters.

What you wear does not really matter, just keep it appropriate to decency

Your video background does not matter, just don't have any inappropriate posters, etc.

Be respectful. Disrespect will ensure your loss (Racial, sexist, cutting people off, etc.)

BE VERY WELL PREPARED! Confidence and grasp of the topic MATTERS!

Judges multitask, listening to you and taking notes....so Please do not have so many points where you can hardly catch your breath. That ensures that Ive missed 50% of your points.

Coaching for 23 years and taught debate for same amount of time. Holistic judge/flow judge, but want CLASH on both sides. I am okay with speed, but should not deplinish your arguments-those come first. Some progressive is okay, don't like Plans or Counter Plans-those need to stay in CX.

This is still value debate so would like to see value criterion used and supported.

K's okay, not optimal, but will listen to them.

Standing during debate is a must-lazy if you don't.

Short Paradigm:

-I flow

-Tech>Truth

-4 years of PF at American Heritage School, 3 TOC quals

Long Paradigm:

Arguments:

-I'll vote on literally anything that makes sense and isn't blatantly offensive. That includes progressive arguments (Theory/Ks) or counterintuitive substantive arguments (nuclear war good/economic development bad).

-I'll vote on presumption even if you don't tell me to as long as neither team has any offense. I default neg on presumption, but I'm open to arguments regarding defaulting alternatively.

Extensions:

-Defense isn't sticky; I'm not evaluating anything that's not in final.

-Second rebuttal has to respond to all offense; otherwise, it's conceded (I will let some things slide if you're in novice).

-No progressive off-case positions in the second rebuttal unless the other team violates in first rebuttal; DAs are fine.

-First summary doesn't need to extend defense that the second rebuttal concedes. It can go straight to the final.

Speed:

-I can comfortably flow anything ~300 WPM without a speech doc assuming you're clear

-You can spread against anyone even if they are not ok with it but

a. If they are novices, you have to warn them before the round. If they say "speed" and you don't slow down I'll stop flowing.

b. If you have factors preventing you from following speed outside of your control (i.e., a disability), then tell your opponents or me about it (I'll keep this anonymous) and make sure that no one spreads.

c. I'll be receptive to theoretical arguments assuming they are properly structured.

Weighing:

-If it's not comparative, don't bother making it

-If it's fake (i.e., we outweigh on probability because we have a link and they drop defense), don't bother making it

-If you aren't winning your argument, don't bother making it

-If the first final has new weighing, I allow new weighing in the second final; otherwise, don't bother making it

Evidence:

-I will never drop a team for misconstruing evidence, only the argument

-I will only evaluate an evidence dispute if you tell me to call for something AND explain what's wrong with the evidence

Progressive Argumentation:

-Slow down for these, and ideally, I want a speech doc regardless

-I can and will comfortably evaluate theory (T, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, Spec, Condo good/bad, etc.)

-I'm open to more nuanced (DAs on shells, comparing forms of disclosure, etc.) or silly (shoe theory/30 speaks theory) theoretical arguments

-If you read theory or Ks in paragraph form I will disregard your arguments.

-I will vote on tricks (spikes/NIBs/skep triggers/paradoxes)

-I will vote on a K but

a. I have no familiarity with your authors

b. I don't have enough experience to be comfortably evaluating K debates (as in I might screw you and you'll be sad)

Prefs:

-I like sarcastic debaters that make fun of their opponents and their opponents' args. Don't make them too upset though.

-Postrounding is good for debate. If my decision upsets you, feel free to question it and me as a judge. You (or your coach) can be as rude, condescending, and aggressive when post rounding if you're feeling like it, and I won't hold that against you.

- I encourage teams to pursue unconventional strategies like responding to the first constructive in the second constructive. Or reading arguments that take out all offense on both sides and then telling me to vote on presumption.

-Speaks are arbitrary so let me know if you're in a bubble and need high speaks to break

-If your offtime roadmap is too long, then I'll be upset.