Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

: My Credentials :] :

I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.

: General Info for All :

For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. If you go faster, as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.

Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.

SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.

: LD :

I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)

Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.

I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.

: PF :

As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.

Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).

: Policy :

I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Speed:

If I am unable to understand what you are saying, especially when you are reading cards, I am not going to flow it. In my opinion, both your opponent and myself need to be able to understand what you and your cards are saying in order for there to be a debate. So if you want to speak fast, then you are most likely not gonna get my vote.

Framework:

I consider framework as a way to view the round. When debating framework, I prefer arguments that pertain to the context of the resolution more so to the arguments against the actual theory. For example, there is a common card to use against KCI that talk about how Kant does not allow for rebellion. However, in the context of space appropriation, rebellions against the government are not topical (or at least of what I have seen) and therefore is not really an argument against KCI in the context of the resolution.

Contentions:

I don't have a preference of what you run for contentions but make sure it makes sense, is clear, and that it aligns with your framework. I weigh analysis more than examples.

Voters:

Make sure to weigh your points under the framework and weigh frameworks in both a vacuum and in the context of the debate.

Extemp:

In the introduction, make sure you filter to your question just like you do when writing a paper. The introduction should provide the general background necessary to understand your speech and also establishes why your topic/issue is important. The introduction should be no more than 1:00-1:15; I more curious about your answer to the question as well as how your analysis supports your arguments than an introduction.

Make sure your main points are clear and distinct. Make sure your presentation in each point is logical and clear in reaching your argument. Make sure your points answer the question as it is worded. If you question has to do if so and so can do something, then you best talk about if they can and not about if they should or would.

Use sources for a purpose and properly introduce them. For citing sources, I expect publisher, date (not just the year or time reference like just last week), and realistically you should be citing the author as you do when writing a paper. After citing your sources, make sure to provide analysis and that the analysis is new. You should not be saying the same thing, in different words, as you made your point and need to move on.

Make sure to have transitions like you do when writing a paper. That is there, should be topic sentence and a concluding sentence that transitions your speech to your next main point.

Your conclusion should only be about 45 seconds and make sure to restate your question and a brief (one or two sentence) summary of each of your points.

"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

Preferred Pronouns: They/Her

I did LD debate for three years of high school and just graduated from Norfolk Senior High last year. I ran some kritical cases in those three years but never full K's so I'm not as familiar with them as other judges. I'll listen to them but just know that you will need to do a little more work in round for me to vote for them.

LD Debate -

General: I try my best to vote off what is heard in round. Whatever is presented to me in round and on the flow is what I will evaluate the round through. I like good clash but please be respectful during round. I know when I debated I hated being talked over so please be respectful of your opponent. Please engage with each others arguments and don't just read a page of cards and expect me to vote based on that. Also I'm pretty open to almost all arguments and positions unless its problematic.

V/C: I evaluate the round through whatever ethical lens you give me. That can be value/criterion, standard, R.O.B, etc.

Speed: I flow on paper. That being said I can keep up fairly well with fast paced reading. However, I don't like spreading and cannot flow it. If you chose to spread in front of me just keep in mind that there is a chance I won't be able to write down all the arguments you say which can come back to harm you later in round. Use this information to your advantage or don't. I will let you know if you need to slow down if needed. Also make sure if you are reading fast that it isn't exclusionary to your peer.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

Email: melissamarieflores77@gmail.com

Hi folks!

My name is Kiah (she/her) and I graduated from Yankton High School (South Dakota) in 2021. I've mostly debated Lincoln-Douglas and Congress, but I have a tiny bit of Public Forum experience.

I debated traditional/lay debate throughout high school, so please keep that in mind going into round. I can handle speed to an extent.

Here is a list of things that make me :))) in rounds

1. SIGNPOSTING!!! it helps me as a judge when i'm flowing, and it should help you in round. you absolutely will get docked if you don't signpost.

2. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

3. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

4. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

5. when you kick your F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

6. in general if you teach me something that’s great!!!!

Here is a list of things that make me :'( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will:

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. i will drop speaks if necessary.

3. don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

ask me or email me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to :) holmstromkiah@gmail.com

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

- dhwanikharel1@gmail.com

-My first priority is ensuring that debate is an inclusive activity. Provide trigger warnings if what you are running is triggering. Use common sense. Racist, sexist, homophobic cases.. just don't run them

- avoid circular framework debate, i.e "my framework is a pre-req to their framework." "no, MY framework is a pre-req to THEIRS."

-I debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for Brookings High School in South Dakota. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I hate "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- LIMIT jargon.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar with the literature so you'll have to explain it well.

- Not a fan of pointless theory. Please don't run theory unless there is actual abuse.

-The round is yours, do what you like but just be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

- Don't use pointless buzzwords if what your saying has no substance. I can tell when you're not saying anything at all but rather just throwing words out there for the sake of saying them

---[ Key Points ]---

Philosophy: Tabula Rasa, flow judge, and Key arguments tend to decide

Speed: Moderate / Sub-spread (250-350 WPM)

Case: Should be shared either in physical copy or digitally. Don't care how many contentions there are.

Tigger Warnings: Should be checked pre-round for sensitive material and ready to be switched out

---[ Personal Info ]---

Pronouns: (They/Them)

Email: Martin.Kloster@jacks.sdstate.edu

Experience: Policy, PF, LD, World Schools, and Big Questions. I also have experience in Oral Interp (Drama, Humorous, Duo, Readers Theatre), theatre, and Extempt. Fourth year judging.

Education: Junior at SDSU majoring in Sociology and minoring in Philosophy / Comp Sci. I have a good grasp on most of the concepts discussed in round.

Online ballots tend to be long and specific, and are filled out as a tournament goes on. I enter the results first, then update comments until all of my notes are down or I run out of time. If a ballot is blank or incomplete - or if there are any questions - then email me and I will do my best to communicate my RFD, notes, flow, and/or make clarifications.

---[ General Information ]---

/ Evidence /

I expect transparency first and foremost. If evidence is asked for it must be provided within one minute, after that prep time must be used. If evidence can't be provided then it will be dropped, and debaters can choose to drop evidence at any point in the round. Evidence should be linked back to the source material as a link or to the full text. Evidence should be a text document (word, google docs) or pdf because of paywalls and highlighting/marking. For summarized evidence, relevant text should be in some way marked or noted. Logic based arguments don't need sourcing or evidence. I prefer that a copy of the case is shared, but this is not required unless asked. The best way to share evidence and cases is through an email chain and the second best is through https://speechdrop.net/. This should be configured before the round.

/ Speed and Performance /

I have audio processing disorder and ADHD, so I can't keep up with full on spreading. I prefer moderate/sub-spread speed (250-350 wpm). Articulation and volume is important and will allow for higher speeds. Sharing a copy of the case will allow me to make up for the Audio Processing Disorder, meaning that I have an easier time judging and the debaters have better judging on their cases.

/ Default Weighing Preferences /

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Case

Don't get abusive with spikes and blips.

/ Kritiks /

Running K's:

I love K's when they are properly argued. Running K's have risks, and I expect them to be run well. K's are highly technical to set up and run, and it can end up falling apart with a simple mistake. The best way to mitigate risking a round is to be careful and/or fall back if the K fails. I also need signposting or communication that it is a K so I can judge it accordingly.

Defending against K's:

A debater should at least be prepared with generic defense. If you can get to the heart of the K and argue on that, you can probably beat it. One caution: arguing that the K is abusive without without warrants will fail. The more prepped a debater is against an argument, the less I will weigh limits abuse.

/ Theory /

I will weigh theory if it's argued well. Proper Theory arguments with good impacts will do well. I dislike Framers intent but do enjoy Topicality arguments as a whole.

/ Arguments /

I have biases like anyone else, but I make sure not to vote on them. Because I feel it is important for transparency to state them, I have listed them below....

I love hearing Marxist, Anarchist, Feminist, Critical Race Theory, Decolonization, Queer Theory, etc. Generally won't care about Econ arguments unless they are tied into impacts on living beings or have a framework to make it important. I Passively dislike Heg and Realism arguments, but am still willing to listen. Again: I will vote almost anything with solid warrants and argumentation.

/ Trigger Warnings /

Trigger Warnings should be given prior to the speech and before the round if it is in the case. If an opponent or judge is unable to interact with the sensitive material, a back up should be prepared or the point should be dropped. If you have the foresight and understanding to check about material before use I expect alternatives to be prepared.

/ Variations /

I weigh and judge Novice differently than I do Varsity, and am more strict with how K's are ran in state.

---[ Lincoln-Douglas / Policy ]---

Tabula Rasa jduge. I am loosely attached to the rules unless they have good warrants. Debate is socially constructed for the benefit of the students, and as such it should be up to the students to construct it however they want. NSDA rules work for me, but if debaters want to argue that a rule or structure is wrong then I'll follow along. I just need good arguments.

In the round, I put whether or not the debaters themselves are respected first. This means that competitors should attack the arguments and not the opponents. A light degree would result in lower speaker points, and egregious cases will be met with a vote down. If a round needs to be put on a hold because of an anxiety or a panic attack, I'll do whatever I can to accommodate - I just need some notification.

While I'm not technical about the rules (unless it is brought to the center of a debate), I am technical when it comes to the ideas and arguments within a round. In my ballots I'll try to point out exactly where I think weaknesses are in the case or arguments, but I won't vote on these unless they are either touched on in the debate or I'm forced at the end of the round to make connections because of a wash. I am open to any arguments as long as there are good warrants, links, and they don't actively degrade people. K's are great with a good link, but also I am perfectly willing to do whatever with the ballot if both competitors agree and it actively furthers education (Ex: Using the rest of the debate to talk about an issue that is affecting the real world). Run something fun that you care about it. Odds are I'll follow along with it and prefer that over something that is strictly strategic. Make debate a fun experience.

High Speaks - Respectful yet assertive debate. Compelling ideas and good argumentation will improve your position. 30 if I think that the round betters debate as an activity.

Low Speaks - Abusive arguments or showing a lack of care. Very low Speaks for being abusive to opponents.

---[ Public Forum ]---

I have a debate background, so I understand jargon and will judge off the flow. Good arguments and understanding what is being argued will lead to a win. Don't be afraid of running frameworks and resolutional analyses, because I will take them into consideration and they will make an impact.

---[ Extempt ]---

Questions should have a clear answer with convincing points. Timing to me is important, but usually not a deciding factor. I will weigh information density and quality over performance, but only margianally so (it can be a tie breaker). In person I will turn my laptop around so that the competitor can see the time and I don't need to worry about missing a time signal.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

If you prove to me that you're winning on the flow, then I'll vote for you. Framework is important if it's carried throughout the round and given sufficient justification. I like when teams have clash on big points of contention in the round. Don't read so fast that it becomes a detriment to your ability to articulate your words. Respect each other, please.

hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)

chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte

dowling 23- i am going to be judging a ton of pf for the foreseeable future! i'm excited to learn more about a different style of debate. however, the way that I approach rounds pretty much never changes. i only care about the arguments on the flow, not speaking style. i highly value framework debate and impact weighing, and i expect that debaters try their hardest in every round. my paradigm might not be very helpful if you're a PF debater, so feel free to ask me questions before the round. gl everyone!

apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use speech drop i would appreciate it very much.

going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.

Quick Guide if you want to pref me

1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)

Debord

Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).

SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)

Rawls

Socrates/Plato

2- Butler

LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)

Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).

Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).

SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.

Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.

4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.

"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.

Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.

Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.

5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)

Time Cube >:(

skep

social darwinism

badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.

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

here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds

1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)

6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!

here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.

3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident

ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to

my email is rdover2@gmail.com if u need it

u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well

Sioux Falls Jefferson LD and IE Coach

"Sauce Boss"

Debate Rounds Judged: A lot (130+ish i think?)

General -

Aberdeen Central ‘21

Tech>truth

Tabula Rasa Judge overall

For the love of god please make evidence sharing short and sweet, It does not need to take 5 mins of time to share it, please do not have it take that long.

I used to disclose but after arguments with debaters as to why I am wrong has turned me off to wanting to do it. More likely than not I am not going to. showing up to the debate round last minute on purpose is pretty annoying, if you are near the room, go in so we can start the round.

New in the 2 = Dumb. Do not make new args in non constructive speeches. I am a 5-6 on Speed as well. I have a very high threshold when it comes to the argument of In Round Abuse happening, to me it is an all or nothing argument, not a time suck. I have a high bar when it comes to me voting on RVIs, Condo/Dispo. If you bring 17 arguments to the flow I expect them to be answered by your opponent but you also need to extend and properly handle them. Running Disclosuse Theory with me as a judge = 0 Speaks, A Loss, and me being annoyed for however long the debate is. Stop being a baby and debate, you do not need all of your coaches to do the work for you and prep out a case.

Word usage to avoid with me as your judge -

Racial Slurs, Excessive swearing (a well placed curse is okay once and while),

Circuit Stuff (1-5, 1 meaning i like the arg)

Tech>

1 -

Trad LD
T vs K Affs (hard for me to not vote of it when it is ran, i really do not buy the whole in round education matters more than the round itself)

2 -

Speed (SIGNPOST TAGS, SLOW DOWN ON TAGS PLEASE)
Theory

Res Based Ks

3 -

Phil Debate, In round abuse args

4 -

K Affs (will vote if the Alt is the good)

5 -

High Theory

Non Res Based Ks

LARP

CP, PICs

Strike me -

RVIs good, Death Good Ks, Kant, Queer/Trans Violence against ones self (mentions of self harm = not good for me as your judge)

Strike me AND seek help -

Disclosure Theory / Open Source Theory, Tricks (Cringe)

How I give Speaker Points

I think speaker points are possibly the worst thing about debate since there is not a universal system on what makes a "good speaker". You should not get 25 speaks because you talk fast to a lay judge or get 30 because you spread to a circuit judge. So here is how I give out my speaks and what each means.

23 and Below- Did something in the round that was out of pocket and probably not ethical (IE: -isms, ists)

24-26 - Below Average speaker, you get up in the round and make some arguments but not ones that sound good. Needs serious improvement in more than one area

27 - Average. This is what each speaker starts out in the round for me, you go into the round with 27 speaker points by default

28-29 - Above Average to Elite Speaker - you make some great arguments and have a great flow along with signposting, doing good line by line, and being clear while also formulaic when you speak

30 - The Best Speaker I have seen all year - I do not think I have given out one 30 in all of my judging maybe ever, so this is a high bar. You will need to be perfect to get this. You need to not stumble once, be razor efficient with words and just dice your opponent up.

Ways to get more Speaks in .1s in the Round

Being Funny, Smart, and being a bit sassy in CX is ways to get you some points with me

Making an argument I was thinking of and then saying, shows a high level of talent.

Ways to lose Speaks with me as the Judge.

Running Disclosure Theory, Speed Ks, or just paraphrasing things in general.

Being not nice

IEs
I think that IEs should be based how well you can give me whatever information you have. Oratory, Inform, Interp etc are not my thing even though I have competed in all of those events. If you have me in non extemp, just talk good, and if you have me in Extemp, just know I could really care less about how good you talk and if you give me fluff, I will be to tell if you are actually saying really anything substantive. Content and analysis is way to get the one with me in the back.

Public Fourm

I want offense offense offense, that's how you win with me as a judge in the back, I want to see offense or you will not get my ballot. Do good weighing, Warrant analysis, and clobber your opponent into the ground, and you will get my ballot at the end of the round. While I do not coach PuFo directly, I will most likely have some what of an understanding of the topic but go easy on lingo based in the topic unless I state otherwise. I do not like paraphrased when I am your judge, I think it allows bad debaters to get an advantage. I will not vote you down simply for the fact that you have a case like that but I will be very inclined to listen to Paraphrase theory and that you should vote down the other team for it. But once again, you will have to read that theory argument for me to vote the other team down on it. I think public forum debate can be very lizard brained in the fact that everyone runs the same argument and it gets very boring. I will love to see you run arguments that have sick warrents and great links, I will be much more likely to vote on that compared to a not well thought out case. I am a 6 for speed and prefer tech debate to anything.I default to a CBA FW unless told otherwise. Generally speaking your 2AR/NR should just be voters and why you win the round by framing in the context of the debate (IE: Impact Calc, Solvency)

Do not ask if you can have first question, if you spoke first just start CX. Do not say, "off the clock roadmap", just give me an order. Just say, "Everyone Ready" instead of asking each person in the round, asking everyone wastes my time and yours.

LD

I think i am about as big of a mix of Trad and Circuit judge that you can have. I Coach this activity and I have come to believe that this should not become policy. While I was a policy debater, I think LD should remain mostly sperate from policy. That being said I will be fine with Ks with link to the res. Reading plan text in LD should be in the context of the res itself. I am going to have a very high bar for the evidence that you send me or that you read, if you say that there is a warrant in there that isnt, I am probably not going to eval it as a valid argument. Keep speed to like 5-6, I am fine with speed but PLEASE slow down on your tags, if cant hear or understand you, i am not going to flow. Tech>Truth. Reading the 50 States CP is probably not a good idea with me as your judge. Reading DAs is fine but your links better be good and not just generic Ev. Same with PTX Cases, specifics or i have a high bar for any argument that you make. Overall, keep a good flow, make a good arguments, and youll get my ballot. FW should not always be the most important voter in the round but you should not just drop it after your first speech. AFF has FIAT but I think the neg is going to have a hard time convincing me post res that any of their arguments based X Action happens so that means x actor will do this, you will need to do a lot of convincing me in the link debate to do this.

Policy -

I am a 8 on speed, signpost and you will be just fine, if you do not sign post. I will be slightly annoyed and make faces to show as a such. As someone who practiced their speed and mastered it, I like seeing those who mastered it aswell, that being said, if you cannot clearly spread, don't, I will not dock you if you do not talk fast enough, but I will dock you for talking too fast. I will vote not anything that is - Condo/Dispo, some inround discourse Ks(aka Speed Bad etc), Meme arguments, and Actor CPs. I flow CX and think it is important for argument developing and using it as a tool in your arsenal to clown your opponents.I am not a fan of PICs at all, think they are abusive and leech off aff ground. I tend to lean on a good CP with a mutual exclusivity NB with a sick DA, T, GOOD discourse Ks (IE - Security), Stock issues, politics DAs. I want offense, offense, offense.

Notions I carry with me into the round -

Presumption = Neg. Trying to change of this idea is an uphill battle and you will have an easier time trying to convince me that JR Smith is the greatest basketball player of all time. Do not waste your time on trying to dispute this.

Death is (probably) bad

BQ

Refer to LD and Pufo for framework and weighing arguments. Be the better debater and I will vote for you. I have minimal experience and do not care about this event nearly as much as I do the others.

TL:DR - Tech>Truth. I will vote on Paraphrase theory. Offense wins my ballot. Please signpost and do proper line by line. Disclosure Theory, or Bad Ks = dumb. There is no 3NR/AR

Hello! I'm a first-year assistant coach, former debater, and flay judge from South Dakota. I did LD, IX, and CD in high school but am focusing on PF and USX/IX as a coach. The LD and PF sections below are geared towards traditional-style rounds of each event, because that is the style I encounter most often, I am most familiar with, and regarding which I can more accurately describe my paradigm. However, I am open to non-traditional styles, arguments, and approaches as long as you can make sure I know where you're going throughout, without the aid of excessive speed. (To wit, I am (in)famously the judge who voted on disclosure theory at Cavalier Invite.) Please feel free to ask before the round if you have any questions.

LD

I'm most familiar with traditional-style LD. Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, this is how I evaluate all such rounds.

1. Which value better satisfies the moral obligation of the resolution?
2. Which criterion better achieves the chosen value in (1)?
3. Whose contention-level arguments better meet the chosen criterion in (2)?

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is having strong links. For both your sake and mine, please explicitly link your value to the resolution's moral obligation, your criterion to both your and your opponent's values, and your contentions to both your and your opponent's criteria; even if the links are obvious, I can't consider those links unless you're the one making them.If you're planning your 1NR or 2AR, consider walking me through the RFD (by explaining how following that three-step link chain should lead to a ballot for you) and giving me multiple paths to the ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Finally, as a note for those who may not be as familiar with traditional-style frameworks: morality is not in and of itself a moral value, and concepts like equality, fairness, justice, freedom, or the like are values, not criteria. No one in an LD round should be disputing that morality is good, but which moral value ought we prioritize when multiple values conflict, as they almost inevitably will when debating the resolution? And the criterion can't be an abstract concept; that's what your value should be. Instead, the criterion is the yardstick I can use to measure who's meeting the value better. If the value debate is between an actual value and "morality," or if the criterion debate is between a measurable criterion and an abstract value, my decision on which framework to adopt for the round will be fairly easy.

PF

Unless I'm asked to consider another path to the ballot by either debater, I default to impact-weighing in PF. In such rounds, I analyze each contention independently, and I ask myself if either team still has offense on that contention by the end of the round. After examining every contention on my flow: if only one team has offense, that team wins; if both teams have offense, I weigh the impacts of that offense; and if neither team has offense, I shed a single tear and try my best to figure out who was closest to having any.

That means that a key to winning a round with me in the back is impact-weighing. For both your sake and mine, please don't assume your impacts are more powerful than your opponents'; tell me not only why you get to your impacts and your opponents don't get to theirs, but give me reasons to prefer your impacts over your opponents'. If you're planning your final focus, consider walking me through the RFD (by very clearly explaining why you have offense and why your offense outweighs theirs) and giving me multiple independent paths to my ballot (just in case I don't buy something in your first path).

Additionally, a fairly common reason why teams lose in front of me is they don’t extend well enough. I have a high threshold for extensions. You must extend both your link chain and your impact; if you drop either your link chain or your impact, you will not be getting any offense from that contention, as in the best case scenario, either you make something happen but that something has no impact, or you win that something would have a big impact but you that thing won’t actually happen. If you want to win, be thorough on your extensions.

I am fine with frameworks, and I am influenced by my LD background when evaluating rounds with them. If one team runs a framework in their constructive, their opponents must run a counter-framework in the following speech, lest they risk conceding the framework debate. I do want to see you give me warrants for why I should prefer your framework over your opponents' (and to extend them), so I have a way to decide which framework to use. I will not use both. The framework is the lens through which I view the entire round and weigh its impacts. I am willing to vote for teams which lose or concede the framework debate so long as they have impacts which link into their opponents' framework. Therefore, in a round with a contested framework debate, I encourage you to do two sets of weighing: one if you win your framework and one if you lose it. I may weigh the same impact very differently given a different framework with which to weigh.

If neither team runs a framework, I take utilitarianism to be the implicit default. That means that, if your case focuses on some form of structural violence or oppression, I strongly encourage you to run a framework. Otherwise, because utilitarianism treats the utility of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk exactly the same as it does that of anyone who is marginalized or oppressed, I would need you to give me quantifiable impacts that I could weigh against your opponents'. I can't rely on what seems or is obvious; I need you to be the one to verbalize it and get all the way to the quantifiable impact, because otherwise I would be imposing truth over tech.

Critically, under this implicit framework, I'm much more concerned with individual-level impacts than societal-level impacts. What that means is that I won't vote on whether you'll boost GDP, avoid a recession, avert armed conflict, or close an income gap, unless you tell me what concrete effect that has on the real-life people who would be affected. What I care about is how many people you take out of poverty, how many people you prevent from becoming unhoused, how many lives you save, or how future generations would be impacted. I realize not every PF debater is familiar with philosophy, so feel free to ask if you have any questions about utilitarianism or what that means for how I weigh given the absence of a framework.

Finally, as a note on nukes: I'm very skeptical of nuclear armageddon impacts. I won't rule out any arguments before they're made, but if you do make this argument, I'll want you to tell me why your opponents' world leads to nuclear armageddon (and your world doesn't) when it has never happened thus far in the real world, despite plenty of opportunities. (Then again, your opponents also need to make this skepticism argument in the round if they want me to vote on it; otherwise, I'll begrudgingly have to weigh it on my own ballot, but I won't be very happy about it.)

Miscellaneous (all events)

Speed—I don't like speed, and I detest spreading. If you're wondering, "Is this too fast?," the answer is yes. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't flow it; if I can't flow it, I can't weigh it; and if I can't weigh it, I most certainly can't vote on it. You have been warned.

Time—I am strict on time. If my timer goes off or if I raise a closed fist near the end of a speech, that indicates time has expired; at this point, I will stop flowing, and I will not consider anything said in the overrun on my RFD. I time speeches and crossfires beginning with the first word (excluding roadmaps). Additionally, I will start prep immediately once your opponent's speech or crossfire has finished, unless you tell me you're forgoing prep. Telling me you'll "start prep in three, two, one" just wastes three seconds of your prep time, as I've already started timing.

Theory—It may not surprise you to learn, after having read the two prior paragraphs, that I think of myself as quite open to theory shells on the basis of the accessibility of the activity, particularly as such arguments relate to speed, spreading, or time abuse. That said, I’ve only ever actually judged one round that included theory, so I can’t give you much detail on how I evaluate theory arguments, save for the fact that I am willing to vote on it. I do know that statements like "this is PF" or "this is LD" are not theory shells and will win you precisely nothing on my ballot, so please give me a better reason than this. (After all, if you, I, or your opponent is not already aware that they are participating in a PF/LD round, there's likely a much bigger problem at hand.) As long as you can explain to me why something your opponent did makes debate less accessible to others in some way, I'm willing to consider it; I just may be a bit inconsistent with how I adjudicate theory until I've seen it a few times and know what I really feel about different sorts of theory arguments once I've seen them made. As a very important point, however: similar to my policy on frameworks, if your opponent introduces a theory shell, you must respond in your next speech — even if that speech is a PF second constructive — lest you risk dropping that theory shell.

Cross—I have no preference for whether you sit or stand during cross or speeches. If my timer goes off when you're still asking a question in cross, I will advise your opponent not to answer your question. If my timer goes off after you've finished asking a question or during your opponent's response, I will announce that your opponent may choose whether or not to answer the question.

Disclosure—I know this is generally the norm at most tournaments, but since it's less universal in South Dakota specifically, I'll add that I am perfectly fine verbally disclosing my decision and RFD after any round; just give me a few minutes to decide. Please also feel free to take any notes you might need during my disclosure or ask any questions you might have afterwards, as I may not be able to write a detailed RFD by the time the tournament ends and my access to Tabroom's online balloting and RFD system closes, as I'll be more focused on my own debaters.

Signposting—In addition to all the rest, I want to make a special note to implore you to please signpost clearly. If I don't realize where your argument fits on my flow, I may mistakenly think you dropped that argument. Even if I do figure what you're extending or responding to, the time it takes me to figure out where you are on the flow is time I'm distracted from what you're actually saying, which might mean I miss flowing something else that's important. All in all, always signpost.

Tech v. truth—I default to tech over truth, but I reserve the right to make exceptions — principally, if any debater's arguments defend, diminish, excuse, justify, support, or promote a current, historical, or hypothetical genocide or its perpetrators, or otherwise amplify its supporters' claims. If I ever have to invoke such an exception, neither you nor I are going to like it.

Personal attacks—I can't believe I have to say this, butI don't take kindly to claims that, because you're running a contention or framework meant to be helping a certain group of people, and your opponent hasn't responded by conceding the round, your opponent hates, doesn't care about, or is a bigot towards that group of people. I also don't appreciate assertions that, because they have not conceded the round, an opponent does not understand a system of oppression with which they have firsthand lived experience. As I see it, the purpose of such statements is less about paths to the ballot on my flow and more about flustering, frustrating, or angering your opponent into making poor decisions. Unfortunately for people who make these rhetorical choices, those choices also frustrate and anger me, and one of the decisions I have to make is whether I should tank your speaks as a result. Don't do it.

Names and pronouns—Please don't hesitate to let me know if I mispronounce your name or if there's another name you'd like to be called besides what's listed on Tabroom. I also default to using the singular they for all competitors unless told otherwise; I am happy to use any other pronouns instead or in addition if you'd like me to, but please also don't feel any pressure to disclose your pronouns if you'd prefer not to for any reason.

Basic respect—Let's just try to be decent people, folks.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins. I hope you enjoy your round, and best of luck!

lay judge

---

I think that debate is about having fun and being kind in the process. Don't be rude or condescending to your opponents (or racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.), or I will have a negative opinion of you, which may affect the round's decision.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

I am an undergraduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in communication studies and political science, with a minor in public policy analysis; this will be my third year judging high school debate. While I personally never debated in high school, I captained my varsity mock trial team for three of four years with championship success and have extensive experience with what constitutes a well-constructed and skillfully presented argument (my college major is literally in rhetoric). Basically, you’re not going to impress me with rapid-fire speaking and cramming citations down my throat; you’ll impress me with a solid and understandable argument.

You can reach me at ssaxon@huskers.unl.edu.

Overall Judging Style

If there are any aspects of the debate I will look to before all others (regardless of the event), they are presentation, framework, and impact. Ensure that you're speaking clearly and at a pace where even a layperson can understand your argument and individual points. Organize things clearly with a defined cause and effect. Fancy jargon and vocabulary are nice, but they're just embellishment. Ensure your bare-bones argument is solid and the rest will fall into place.

Speed will not win you any points with me — I sat through far too many speed-reading-from-notecards powerpoint presentations in my high school days. This is a public address activity; your arguments need to be both substantiated and understandable. I prefer a consistent, metered pace — it allows for a more involved, persuasive, and all-around comprehensive style of speaking and debate. As the presenter, it is your burden to ensure your speech is clear and understandable: the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must do so. That said, I am not unreasonable; if you need to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team presented, that is acceptable, it just shouldn’t be your default setting as a competitor.

Spreading is a pet-peeve of mine. Your job is to prove your argument as thoroughly as possible and parry your opponent's points, not to introduce as many superficial arguments as you can possibly spit out. Spreading is cheap, full stop.

Also, if you want the most accurate, well-rounded judging and the most extensive feedback possible from me, you’d better not be speaking at lightyear speed. Brains don’t work that way.

I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence and its source material are saying, and for the love of Sophocles, look up the pronunciation of formal nouns and places mentioned in your evidence. It’s trivial, but repeatedly mispronouncing words gives the impression you did not do your due diligence in research.

General Things

-I encourage and always allow self-timing, but am willing to keep time for the round if necessary

-Roadmaps are always off the clock for me

-I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, you’re doing it wrong

-I like to flow as much as possible, so I appreciate a debater with well-organized and clear signposts

LD Paradigm:

-I briefly debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for OG. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I dislike "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- please limit your jargon or buzzwords, especially if you don't know what they mean or how to use them.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar so please explain it well.

-be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

PF Paradigm:

-please don't run a circular framework debate the whole time, i.e. "my framework is a pre-q to theirs". Focus on the contentions and analysis :)

-I love voters and impacts in the final speech

-Speed is okay, but not "policy fast."

I've judged LD and PFD earlier and had been a debater myself in a different format.

I'm open to the various formats and delivery of speeches. Content matters more to me, the speaker has to maintain dignity about other speaker, any type of Abuse to any person, religion or culture is absolutely unacceptable.

I understand lay the most but larp is also fine.

I prefer speech delivery at a rate which has words clear to understand. Fast pace is ok, as long as words are clear.

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

Hello. I have been involved as a judge for speech and debate for the past 10 years. I debated in LD and Policy in high school and briefly participated in Parliamentary Procedure in college.

The debate round is your time to demonstrate argumentive and speech skills to convince me of your case. I will evaluate the round as I am told to, but I need the debaters to close for a specific way for me to evaluate the round. If I am not told how to judge the round, I will default as a policymaker judge and evaluate that way.

A few things to consider for arguments:

I am cool with procedural debate to an extent, but I need clear evidence that there was a violation and that there is a specific rule in the handbook that was violated for me to vote on it.

I will vote on T if Neg can prove case is not topical. On the flip side, Aff can totally run a non-topical case if they are really good at arguing through T. If Neg closes for T with an a priori voter and doesn't address the T first, I assume they don't believe in the argument and I'll throw it out of the round.

Aff should have a prima facia case (debate 101 with Paul Harens here). It drives me crazy when the 1AC completes the case without ever reading Inherency and everyone in the room ignores it like it didn't happen. I've voted on Gap Inherency so many times when it is proven in round to be the case.

Disads and CPs are the bread and butter of policy debate in my mind. Not every scenario should lead to extinction, but some do. Nuke war is just another hyperbole, but it lets us discuss the best way to address the harms presented by the case and weigh the solvency of case. If we go for a policymaker decision, please use impact calc to give me a clear reason to vote the round.

I don't live in the debate world. I am just a person that enjoys participating in the activity and watching students grow into great communicators. That said, I am probably out of the loop on the hottest lit for the K right now. I'll listen to it, but the theory and the narrative need to be consistent and clear for me to evaluate. If I get confused on how to interpret it, communication broke down and I am not wholly responsible.

I will vote presumption if Neg calls for it; however, I will need to be convinced that there is no net-solvency to pass plan to do so.

Couple other notes:

I still contribute to killing trees at tournaments, so don't assume that I'll have a laptop to take a copy of case and not flow the round.

Speed is cool with me to an extent. I probably have a tolerance of 6.5 on a scale 1-10. Look, I like some of that Sound Cloud mumble rap out there, but I don't really like mumble speed reading. Be fast, but be clear. I also like to stay organized, so please slow down on signposting and tagging so that I can keep with the debate on my flow.

It is okay to ask for post-round comments, but I will tell you if I feel like disclosing or not. If I tell you I am not going to, don't try to push for it. It won't work.