Background:

I am a Princeton High School parent volunteer judge and an elected public official well-versed in campaign speaking and real-life policy deliberation.

Preferences:

I have a low toleration for speed (do not like spreading) and value clear, concise and audible arguments, delivered with courtesy and respect for all participants. Look me in the eye and explain why your value is most important and make your case. Remember, I haven't been studying your topic for weeks -- bring me along with your arguments. Fewer, well-supported contentions preferred. Debate jargon is annoying.

Paradigm:

Please give me a clear way to vote for you. I will not intervene in the round unless you give me a reason to. Other than that, have fun and convince me of your position.

Parent of a Chaminade High School student. I have being judging for 4 years. I prefer students to speak more slowly, no funny debate tricks, I prefer straight forward arguments, and be respectful of your competitors. Have fun.

Hi!! My name is Mimansa Bhargava and I am currently a senior at Lexington High School. I have debated in Policy Debate for 4 years now (Varsity for 3 years). I have written out brief descriptions of my ideas on different components in a debate that I keep in mind while judging. My email is 21bhargava@lexingtonma.org so you can add me to the email chain and/or if you have any additional questions after the round.

K:

I have always preferred debating in policy. That being said, if you run K arguments (either aff or off case) I will need you to clearly lay out the story of your K argument (impact, alt, what the world looks like post-alt, etc.). That doesn't mean you shouldn't/can't run K arguments. I want you to debate with the arguments that are your strengths and that you most enjoy debating about (after all the point is to have fun and learn). But just clearly explain it to me.

Policy:

I think to debate well in policy a team needs to advocate for a course of plan that would better solve a specific issue within the resolution or prove that a team is non-topical which has its own impacts within debate rounds. Even within policy, you need to articulate the story of the plan and the impacts that you are trying to sell. As long as you are coherently presenting your arguments, answering key arguments, and going for beneficial strats (which depend on the round), you would be in a good shape.

In any type of debate, there has to be clash for the round to be enjoyable and educational.

General:

I know debate is a competitive activity and often times the debate community can be toxic because of this. But please be kind and respectful to each other in and outside of a round. I will take speaker points off if I witness debaters being disrespectful in any way. Kindess only :)

General: I am an 'old-school' former LDer so I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, LD is about value propositions not plans or statistics and that is what I will base my decisions on. In other words, LD should prioritize the WHY not necessarily the HOW.

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

Roadmaps: I do allow off-time roadmaps - just be clear you are offering one before you start so I don't trigger my speech timer. Once that timer begins, I do not stop it. Similar to my comment about pacing, it's important that you are clear about where on the flow your comments/arguments/rebuttals are being directed. If I have to guess at what you are responding to, I may put in the wrong spot on my flow. This can lead to situations where arguments appear dropped or don't appear to truly rebut what it was flowed with. Providing clear signposts during your speech can save everyone a lot of headaches here.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

Parent Judge. Please ask any questions before or after the round, and I will do my best to answer.

Please be respectful and professional at all times. You can be assertive without being rude or unkind.

I value brevity and clarity, and please speak clearly. Please don't expect me to understand technical terms and references. You may need to explain the basics because I may have no knowledge of your topic.

I will try to take notes on the round, but I do not know how to flow. Make it easier for me by SIGNPOSTING every response, warranting EXTREMELY explicitly, and extending WITH WARRANTS in every speech. If something is important, let me know. Point out concessions, cross isn't binding. That being said, I'm not stupid, so don't be abusive (esp. in second FF).

As a judge, I am emphasize clarity. I can only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable.

I have been a speech and debate judge for a couple of years, and enjoy LD debates. That being said, I prefer traditional cases. Additionally, please try to rebut all of your opponents contentions/points. If you do not address a point, I will assume that you concede to it.

Please speak loud and clearly . Especially with the online format of debate, I will likely not be able to catch all of your points if you speak too fast.

I see cross-ex as a good time to challenge your opponent's case.

Overall, please just try to have fun!

I'm new to judging debate so make your contentions and arguments as clear as possible. No spreading and please speak slow enough so I can understand your arguments. Remember to always be respectful and treat people with kindness.

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

Bottom-line upfront: Present clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. Respectful passion is appreciated, but decorum matters. Bullying an opponent is unacceptable and will lower speaker points. Speed is acceptable (but should not be used to skip over weaker parts of your argument), and I recommend you do not speak so quickly that your arguments cannot be absorbed or I cannot take adequate notes. Arguments should be coherent, relevant and on-point. Have fun! Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

General: I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, my decisions will be based on the values presented and whose overall arguments are better.

I am a fourth year parent volunteer judge. Most of my experience is judging LD. I would appreciate a slower paced delivery. I will be looking for clear points that are maintained throughout the initial presentation, rebuttal and summary.

Background: I am a parent judge and I am delighted to participate in the program.

Prefs:

Spreading - I'm not the biggest fan of spreading, you may go fast if you wish, but I will only flow what I hear, which might be pretty slow by most peoples' standards. If you can avoid spreading, then I'd prefer if you could avoid it.

Trad = Larp/Policy > everything else

I enjoy a good traditional debate, but I don't mind policy arguments either.

No K's and no theory if you can help it - I enjoy the clash more.

Truth > Tech - if you make an argument, even if your opponent concedes it, I will not vote for it.

Important: Try to avoid any Debate Jargon if you can help it.

Please be polite and enjoy the debate!!!

I look forward to your active participation and will support the best arguments presented.

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:

1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.

Best,

JH

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

Please take a moment to state your name, school and side of the debate (if applicable) each time you speak.

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

I am a flow judge and will judge strictly on what is argued in the round. I prefer to be told how and why to vote. I want arguments to be made with sound logic and reason. If your evidence is better or should carry more weight, explain to me why that is and make sure I understand

I do not like counter plans outside of a policy debate, so I believe teams should stick to debating the merits of affirming or negating the resolution.

I have no trouble with debaters spreading, but I will say that over video it can be difficult to follow if audio starts to slur and it is near impossible to get the attention of a competitor if I can not understand them. If I missed something because of this, I apologize.

Be respectful and good luck to everyone

I am a parent judge very new to debate so I would prefer if you make your arguments and contentions as clear as possible. It is very important to me that you speak slowly so that I can fully understand your arguments. Please be respectful of each other and enthusiastic about your arguments. Try to relax and enjoy the competition.

I am a parent judge from a school that practices traditional styles of debate. I have been judging LD for 3 years. I favor a traditional approach to debate vs. progressive and those who do not spread. I tend to vote for the debater who provides the best evidence in the most compelling manner and can clearly and convincingly explain to me why and how they won the round. I value grace over stridency, consistency and reason over technical, and compelling and evidence-based arguments.

In judging Lincoln Douglas debate, I will base my win/loss decision on the following criteria: (1) does the debater present a logical and persuasive basis to affirm/negate the resolution; (2) does the debater have evidentiary support or well-reasoned grounds for the arguments presented; (3) has the debater responded adequately to the other side's critique of his/her case; and (4) has the debater demonstrated through argument and cross-examination that his/her case is more compelling than the opponent's proposal.

As far as general rules/criteria: (1) the quality of the cited evidence is more important than the quantity of source material; (2) an argument may carry the day even if there is no evidence card to support it--logic and common sense may be more persuasive than some random quote; (3) "spreading" (i.e., talking too quickly) is not a persuasive speaking style, and I will deduct significant speaker points if I am unable to understand you; and (4) civility is important, and I will deduct significant speaker points if a debater is rude/snide/dismissive of the opponent or the opponent's arguments.

Good luck and have fun!

My strength is in speech and I have years of both coaching and judging students in every speech event. I also have several years coaching and judging debate as well. When presenting (regardless of what event you are in) you have multiple tools available to use to enhance, PERSUADE and connect with your audience. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, CLEAR ENUNCIATION, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Whether you're presenting an interpretation, an oratory, or a position in a debate use those tools. While debating, present your argument, your facts, your position and connect it all to persuade me you're correct. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools and if you choose those tactics I will not be happy and your rank will reflect that mis-step. Also DO NOT waste your time telling me why I should be voting for you when you should be persuading me. In Congressional Debate be strategic in asking questions to better position your argument. Additionally, always move the debate forward. Be HONEST and RESPECTFUL in your presentation.

Alison Manaker

Strath Haven

I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech

Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.

La Salle College HS:
Policy Debater 2004-2007
Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016
Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-2023.

As of September 2023, I am no longer actively involved in coaching, but will still judge from time to time.

I have judged debate (mostly policy, but also LD/PF) since 2008. I no longer judge with regularity and while I am fine with speed, etc. I am no longer a judge who does any topic research.

General Debate Thoughts

Policy--------------X------------------------------K
Tech-----------------------------X----------------Truth
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all cards
Condo good----X--------------------------Condo bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this re-highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

• You should do what you do best and do it well – I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously.
• I will not vote on any argument that makes me uncomfortable as an educator. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
• Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
• Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.

No spreading please. Tabula rasa within reason - I'll hear any argument and will vote on how convincing that argument is. Be polite and follow the rules but gamesmanship is certainly allowed. I will vote solely on the quality of arguments, not the quantity - no sandbagging. Speaking points matter - persuasiveness greatly comes into consideration when I weigh arguments, meaning spreading will hurt you and good speaking that is easy to follow will gain you an advantage in the round. You can talk fast! But don't try to make more arguments than your opponenet can respond to. Be a good sport, and remember, we're all here to learn something!

I am a traditional judge.

Debate: I put more stock in the rebuttal section than the information sections because anyone can read something that they have prepared in advance. A true debater can win with on-the-fly questions and prepared responses to their opponents.

Speech: Have a clear speech with little pauses and breaks. One of the biggest things competitors tend to misunderstand is the timing of pauses and actions in their pieces. If performed well, these can elevate your performance to the max and secure first place

Debate Paradigm

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. You can spread if you please but don't if you cannot properly.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

I'm new to judging (a novice lay judge), but excited to get into it! I prefer you to speak slowly. Thank you and good luck!

Please speak clearly and with enunciation, I won’t flow what I can’t understand. Also please do not debate under the presumption that I expect you to be able to argue all points of the debate to be in your favor, I’m looking for a ranking of importance and argument weighing. Two types of weighing: evidence weighing and overall argument weighing, which is a part of voter issues. Lastly please give some form of voter issues in your last speech.

Hi! My name is Tanisha Saxena (she/her) and I'm a 4th-year 2N varsity policy debater and a senior at Lexington High School.

Add me on the email chain: tanisha.saxena@gmail.com

(If you are really pressed for time, read the bold parts)

General:

- I'm okay with any reasonable argument (nothing oppressive, hurtful, etc.)

- My evaluation is based solely on what is said in the round, I will believe any claim (even ones that seem incorrect) unless someone says otherwise, I don't impose my own knowledge into the round decision

- Speaker points are based on how well you formulate arguments, and how courteous you are in round

- Tech issues are bound to happen in the virtual world. I won’t dock your speaks or prep for it unless the tournament forces me to

Preferences:

- Please be clear about your arguments, I will follow along with evidence but if you aren't clear when formulating the meaning and link chain of your arguments in cross ex and for extensions, I won't evaluate it as much

- If you read a K be very concise with the explanation of definitions, using buzzwords to confuse your opponent just makes for a weaker round and makes it harder for me to figure out what exactly I would be voting on

- Avoid new evidence in the 1AR, if possible. I can allow new evidence to be read but make it minimal. Try not to bring in new arguments, just strengthen your past ones.

- Write your ballot in the 2NR/2AR, make a laundry list of arguments I should vote for your team on and why. For anyone who hasn't done this before: look at all the off case and on case arguments made and say which flows you are winning on and why. Then, explain why I should value you over the other team. This usually takes like 30 secs at the end of the speech and gives you much more ethos

- Value clarity over speed when speaking. If nothing else then slow down on tags and make sure the tags explain the card well. The most important thing for a debate is that both parties actually understand what the other is saying. I won't stop you if you aren't clear but be aware that it forces me to either miss arguments or rely on what I /can/ hear in the meat of the card to figure out what you are trying to say, meaning your arguments won't be as solid in my mind

- Say which arguments you are answering in line-by-line. This makes it easier to flow and way easier for me to directly compare the clashing arguments

- If you're a novice, I get that you won't have much evidence of a lot of new arguments. In that case, I value reasonability and examples. If you are making a claim, use historical facts you know as proof or explain the possible warrants to best show that I should believe you.

First time judge.

Bottom-line upfront: Present clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. Respectful passion is appreciated, but decorum matters. Bullying an opponent is unacceptable and will lower speaker points. Please don't speak too quickly. I recommend you do not speak so quickly that your arguments cannot be absorbed or I cannot take adequate notes. Arguments should be coherent, relevant and on-point.

Pacing: please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

General: I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, my decisions will be based on the values presented and whose overall arguments are better.

Have fun and enjoy yourself!

Hey, I did LD a lot in high school, and as such really don’t care what you run. I'm now studying Philosophy and Economics. Speak however fast you want, but you need to be clear and I’ll call if you’re not.

In novice LD, I am of the opinion that circuit strategies (spreading, Ks, theory, and anything beyond just *mild* T) are unfair UNLESS both of you are cool with it. Please do not be afraid to call "clear" if you feel the other person is speaking unreasonably fast, especially in novice, but also in other divisions.

I will admit that I have some preference for what I perceive as more substantive Ks - things like cap, anthro, or fem - than the ridiculously specific critiques of almost nothing that many postmodern authors make. I'm not saying I won't vote for those things, or that I have a prejudice against them; I'm just saying that those are arguments that typically don't go very far for me - either because I don't get them, or because they're not actually saying much to begin with. As a rule of thumb, please do not read me anything that sounds as hilariously pretentious as this interview.

If I had to give a list of how I typically vote, I'd probably say Policy > Phil (well-explained) = Theory/T > Tricks = K > Performance > Phil (poorly-explained). But again, please do not make your decisions based on this. The reason I vote this way is more indicative of how well I think these different strategies are run on average than just that I don't like K's or something.

Also, I'm totally down for any type of nonsense you want to pursue as a debater. If you want to run a joke case in front of me, please do so. I'm of the philosophy that everything is an argument. Expect a bump in speaks, especially dependent on how funny/creative it is.

On presentation: I think there's a fine line between textbook Debate Snark® and just being pathetically rude. Both are annoying as all hell, but as someone who sometimes towed that line a lot in high school, or perhaps even jumped rope with it, I'll leave it up to you. Just know that if you're angrily snarky I'll probably drop your speaks some. Just bear in mind that if you're really correct, you shouldn't have to run over your opponent to prove it. Be excellent to each other.

Of course, reach out to me if you have any questions about my paradigm, my decisions, or anything else you'd like to talk about.

Email: charlieweiler@uchicago.edu

hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoa! please add michellewu7154@gmail.com to the email chain

*for novices: novice year is all abt learning so if there's anything you want to work on specifically, let me know before the round

tldr:

- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments

- weigh and compare args, write my ballot for me

- time yourself and keep track of your own prep

- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment

- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory

abt me:

- currently a freshman in college,

- i've done policy debate since freshman year and ran policy strategies

about the debate:

- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)

- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides

- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)

- clarity > speed

- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about

- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech

- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)

for ld

i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.

good luck and have fun!!