Hi, my name is Maddie. I debated LD in Neenah, WI for four years. I competed at both national level and Wisconsin level tournaments. (I went to Glenbrooks and Badgerland every year and then CFL's twice so like a decent amount of experience).

Email: alft0003@umn.edu

I am able to understand most arguments, I ran Kritiks, theory, CP's, Plantexts, etc. (pretty much everything). However, I'm not a huge fan of really dense philosophy stuff. Not my fav, but do what you gotta do. If you run dense philosophy or Kritiks I want you to really explain it to me and tell me how it functions in the round. If you can't do that, you won't win the round.

One thing I hate is unnecessary topicality. Unless an argument is CLEARLY untopical, you should not be running topicality. I think it's a cop-out. I will most likely just not flow it and ignore it but whatever you wanna do.

I am fine with spreading. I spread as a debater. It has to be clear and for the love of god DO NOT breathe like a dying fish. It gets on my nerves and takes away from your argument as much as mumbling does. If I can't understand you due to clarity or breathing, I will not flow your argument.

Framework is super important!!!! Please use it as a weighing mechanism!!! Tell me how you win the round with it!!!! I love that!!!! Impacts are super important as well and it’d just be the best if you tied that to your framework. Like damn, that’s a good round.

I won't flow cross because I don't really see a reason to do so??? If you want me to put something on the flow from your cross, please state so and I will do it. Also, do not steal cross or talk over each other. Happened to me a ton as a debater and I really just don't think it's appropriate. Flex prep is fine with me, use your time the way you'd like to.

I'd say that I'm pretty fair with speaks. I know that what the ballot gives as a recommendation is not representative of what good speaks are. The only thing that will dock your speaks is rudeness (towards me or your opponent), any arguments that contain racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobic ideas, etc. (I will drop you automatically and give you a 20), or if you're unclear when you speak.

You can pretty much do whatever you want, just don't be a jerk. I would love to hear any arguments that you put forward! Debate is supposed to be fun and a place to express yourself. Have fun with it! Give me your weird and random arguments! I'd love to hear them from you.

Most importantly, have fun :) (Updated 01/11/22)

Experience- Debated in Wisconsin -- Novice Policy, Varsity Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas

Currently a student at Columbia University

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa. I disagree with bringing an underlying paradigm/set of beliefs which would affect how I would judge a round.

Here, though, might be some pieces of information which could affect how you all adapt to me as a judge:

-I believed in the validity of a theory debate as a debater and as a judge will continue to value theory as long as the claim is shown to affect how the round progresses (this is the only reason why a theory claim would legitimately be brought up in the first place.)

- I understand Kritiks and Counterplans and their associated theory. I will put as much weight in my decision as is demonstrated as necessary in your presentation of claims (this goes for all arguements.)

- Use framework toward an end, please

-I'm good with speed

- Please do the bare minimum which would make a debate educationally valid and not boring... including but not limited to:

-flow everything

-clash

-impact calculus

-don't waste CX with clarification that nobody needs

-understand the arguments you are reading

-signpost

-be clear

-Have a quick and established way for your opponenet to see your evidence

-Short roadmaps

-I value organization (including clash) above anything in speaker points considerations.

I debated policy in Texas in the late 1990s, and then I debated at Northwestern. I have a PhD in rhetoric and argumentation, and I teach at UWM in the Communication Department. I have been judging debate in WI since 2018, and I started coaching in 2020.

I can flow at most speeds as long as you are clear, but I appreciate it when debaters slow down and explain and weigh arguments. I'm open to all well made arguments. Please remember that a tag/claim is not a full argument. I appreciate clash and strong argument development. I follow the debaters' lead for reasons for voting, but saying that "I outweigh" (for example) is not an argument-- you need to explain why you outweigh and why that matters. For PF especially, please remember that the affirmative has the burden of proof.

Update for 9/21: Please slow down for virtual debate.

updates 1/21:

I don't think that true objectivity is possible, so I won't claim to be tabula rasa. However, I do my best to remain open to arguments and set aside my biases. I am not open to hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments. I am also a professional rhetorician, so you will have a challenging time persuading me that discourse doesn’t matter (although the relationships between the material and discursive is up for debate). I’m fine with kritiks, plans, counterplans, framework debates, util impacts debates. I don’t see the logic in how the neg can run a counterplan unless the aff has run a plan, but I’ll listen to the arguments justifying. I’m not strong in classical philosophy, so slow down and explain those arguments. I teach and publish engaging critical theory, so I am stronger in those arguments. If it’s helpful to see my list of publications and classes that I’ve taught, my faculty webpage is somewhat up to date (but I’m really doubt that would be helpful).

I judge based on my flow, and I tend to have a good flow. If you tell me that an argument is a reason for voting, I mark that on my flow and spend time thinking about that in my decision. If you don’t give me a reason for voting, I’ll do my best to sort through the arguments and make a decision. I adore when debaters number their arguments and keep their arguments organized. I will always priorities flowing the tag and key arguments in the card before the author’s name. So if you are extending evidence, it’s a good rule of thumb to give the author’s name and a shortened tag (instead of saying “extend Jones ’20,” say “extend Jones ’20, the impact is global warming,” or if you have been numbering, “extend number 3, Jones ’20).

Speed: I'm fine with speed, and for most debaters, I have had no problem flowing. I’ve been getting some audio glitches in virtual debate. As long as we are virtual, please keep those tags super clear. I've also noticed that as I get tired, I start missing some arguments when debaters are going fast in rebuttals. I'll do my best to keep up, and I don't penalize debaters for going fast. If you want to make sure I don't miss something important, emphasize it clearly.

Bottom line: tell me why you win and how I should make my decision. Please don't let me try to figure out how to weigh competing arguments because that's when debaters start finding me to be unpredictable. Make your case for how I should weigh those arguments.

David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

January 2021 edition

Paula’s Paradigm

Salutations Debaters!

Please remember that one of the primary goals for competitive debate is engaging in civil discourse. As a judge, the first criteria I evaluate is civility. Debaters who demonstrate courtesy, good will, and generosity of spirit perform more effectively.

I expect a fair and honest debate from all competitors. Please consider what fair and honest means: If you are an experienced debater and you are running a K or CP, especially against a novice debater, you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Ks and CPs are complex devices intended for Policy Debate. If you apply them to an LD round you are changing the category rules in such a way that disfavors an opponent who has prepped for an LD round. If you plan on running a K or CP, my suggestion is you keep a back-up case in the ready AND prior to the round, you confirm that both your judge and your opponent are comfortable with you running a Policy device. If one of those answers is no, run your back-up case. I reiterate, if you run a Policy device without disclosing it to both your opponent and your judge you are not engaging in fair and honest debate. Please do not conflate pre-round courtesy with disclosure theory.

On running counterplans and kritiks: Since these are strategies devised for Policy Debate and not as conducive for LD, they should be carefully crafted and run sparingly. That being said, I welcome a creative take on the resolution in the form of a counterplan or kritik. Bear in mind that I must be able to weigh the round with compatible parameters so if you do run a counterplan or kritik you must clearly define how the round is to be framed so your opponent may adequately respond to your case and I have enough criteria for evaluation. Counterplans must contain both an explicit values structure and CP framework. Kritiks must apply a primary line of argumentation originating in critical theory or cultural criticism. Please note: Ks and CPs place unnecessary burdens on the negative case that the neg must fully accommodate. I will not expect an opponent to refute complicated devices intended for Policy Debate without being provided the structural parameters to do so. Therefore, the burden for structurally framing the round falls on the Neg when running Ks and CPs.

Disclosure Theory: The ability to think quickly on your feet (adapting to your opponent during the round) is one of the most important skills a debater can cultivate and will be weighed more heavily than prepping out before a round. I won't judge against a debater who has chosen not disclose on the NDCA or any other wiki. Any time spent arguing on disclosure grounds (or out-of-round concerns) will be regarded as time that could have been better spent responding to what is happening in the round.

Another point to consider with fair and honest debating is intimidation. Please don’t confuse clash, meaningful offense or attacking an opponent’s case with aggressiveness or badgering during a round. Know that spreading in all its various forms is an intimidation tactic and that I consider spreading an equity and inclusion matter. If you are a fair and honest debater, then you cannot simply assume your opponent can accommodate lightning pace. Please be advised: Speed reading will heavily impact speaker points in a negative direction in addition to potentially losing the round.

If you are a speedy reader, but not intentionally spreading, modulate your pace. If I do not catch your framework due to unintelligibility or lack of clarity related to speed you may lose the round since I cannot adequately weigh your case against your opponent’s. I will not interrupt your speech to ask you to slow down. My expectation is a conversational pace.

Please be mindful of the debate format in which you are competing. If you are a Lincoln-Douglas competitor your primary goal is to engage in the realm of ideas, not policy. If the resolution leans heavily toward a policy topic, the best debaters will devise a case which is philosophical and reflective. When judging an LD round, I’m listening for original thinking, insightful analysis, logical reasoning, and summary skills.

I pay very close attention during cross-examination for strategic maneuvering that will allow a competitor to control the trajectory of the debate.

If you and your opponent craft similar frameworks (e.g, the same value or value criterion), please do not tell me “it is a wash.” Weighing frameworks is never a wash. Framework components do not cancel each other out. Argue your position with analysis and reasoning in order to identify why your case better meets the V/VC and by extension, the resolution.

If your value is morality, tell me what kind of morality and why it is the most suitable choice in the context of the resolution. Please don’t use circular reasoning - “because morality means my value criterion is good” or pretense such as “I choose morality because it encompasses all other values.” Simply reverting to the notion that the word “ought” in the resolution implies a moral imperative suggests that the debater has not spent much time researching the resolution in order to understand its assumptions and implications. When I evaluate a case framework, I am looking for depth suggestive of a debater who is wrestling with the ideas embedded within the resolution.

Do reiterate your impacts throughout every phase of the debate, but bear in mind that (for me) extremist impacts like extinction, nuclear war and planetary disaster are less important to the impact calculus as thoughtful and well-developed impacts germane to the resolution and your chosen framework. In other words, I will be swayed by impacts that are expressed through a philosophical line of inquiry or reasoned through in a way that reveals the most significant issues inherent within the resolution.

I will favor the debater who accurately summarizes evidence, evaluates it, contextualizes it, and most importantly, provides analyses that are both cogent and eloquent. Please take care that you do not mistake your evidence for your own original analysis. Be very careful of how you cut cards so the bulk of your case consists of your own reasoning and your own thoughts about the resolution rather than reading through your sources (reiterating someone else’s ideas). A helpful tip for developing your case and presenting it: think in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations.

Do outline your voting issues, but be wary of getting mired in the minutiae of technicalities that reduce the round to a “gotcha” game. Do not assume that the judge flows in the same way a competitor does. Be mindful of simplistic, but common errors like an unanswered point is equivalent to conceding that point. Technically speaking, in an LD debate round, it is not. If your opponent drops an argument, it is an opportunity for you to expound upon your own position with respect to that point. Signpost your refutations and avoid assertions like "My opponent dropped "X" argument, so you can "disregard it" or "flow that point to my side." Not every argument can be answered during the round. The best debaters will strategically choose which arguments are the most important ones to address. While clash is important, maximizing meaningful clash lucidly, concisely, and succinctly will likely win the debate. Represent your opponent's position accurately and do not claim that an opponent has dropped an argument if your opponent has not.

Economic arguments: All too often economic arguments take some form of: “X is too expensive because it costs Y.” This really isn’t a sound argument. An economic argument of quality should demonstrate some notion of economic theory to justify it rather than simply assuming economics itself is neutral. Be aware that modern economic theory originated in 18th century moral philosophy. All economic arguments should be purposeful and grounded in theoretical or philosophical principles. A case with primarily economic argumentation should be placed within an economic framework (structured into the value/value criterion). I am generally unpersuaded by economic impacts or assumptions that government spending or taxation is bad. The very purpose of the government is to tax and spend. Your goal in an LD round is to provide reasons for why the government (We the People) should tax or spend.

When judging PF I look for teamwork and collaboration -- how argumentation is extended between the two speakers and how well they complement each other. As in LD, I’m looking for excellent organization and critical analysis that addresses the resolutional “pith.” PF teams, please consider the LD issues noted above concerning technical minutiae, original thinking, sophisticated casing, and argumentation that is both sound and valid. I’m looking for original analysis and reasoning through the issues inherent in the resolution. One of my primary concerns in PF is crossfire. Please demonstrate the highest courtesy during crossfire. The team that can establish civil discourse during this phase of the debate will likely be favored in the event of a tie. Maintaining civility during crossfire will help the debater(s) control how the debate is framed for the judge.

As in LD, thinking in outline terms so you are constantly summarizing your evidence, your case, your opponent’s case, and your refutations is essential for PF competition. Develop a few significant arguments with scholarly evidence rather than a large number of arguments so you can effectively utilize the limited time in a PF round. Varsity PF debaters — I look for seamless interaction between team members, the ability to crystallize key points, and to concisely summarize the logical components of an argument.

If I am your judge, please feel free to ask for clarification of any matter addressed in my paradigm.

Happy Day!

Paula Jones

Head Coach, Speech & Debate

Golda Meir High School

I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.

Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

01rafe0li@gmail.com [zeros not o's]

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

-Roadmaps seem pointless, if you are efficient, organized, and signpost well you shouldn't need to

I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

**SPEAKS**

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.4 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-27.9 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.4 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-28.9 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.4 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

* General Strat

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

• Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

* Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

* General Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

* CP

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

* DA

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

---

PF Paradigm:

12/3/2020 update: My bar for dropping a team for cheating is fairly low. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

No off-time roadmaps. Period. Signpost instead. I will start the clock when you start roadmapping.

Online debate: Before the round starts, there should be a Google Doc (preferred instead of email) with all debaters and judges on it. You should be prepared to add any evidence you read to that Doc in a carded format -- I am receptive to drop-the-argument theory if evidence isn't accessible to your opponents in round.

I time prep meticulously because prep theft is rampant in PF. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims."). Discuss and review evidence during cross-x time whenever possible.

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not going to win you the round.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make framework arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

• I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

---

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

NSDA 2021: I have judged ZERO rounds on this topic. The last policy judging I did was at NCFL 2019. I will not know the jargon or meta of this topic.

Judging circuit policy debate is generally an unpleasant experience for me, mainly because of speed. However, lay-oriented CX debate is easily my favorite event.

General Overview:

• Default to Policymaker paradigm. The one major difference is that you should always assume that I am very dumb. Call it the 'stupid President' paradigm.
• You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included) IF you keep them to a conversational pace (We're talking Public Forum slow here) and explain why it means I vote for you.
• I have a mock trial background and I LOVE clever cross-x. However, I do expect closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!
• I don't open speech docs except to review specific pieces of evidence that have been indicted.

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

• I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.
• Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

---

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing. I want to sell school administrators on this activity.

My default stance is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

I have no K background. For Ks/nontraditional arguments, go slowly and explain thoroughly. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer a compelling alternative ROTB.

Disclosure theory is exclusionary/bad, but disclosed positions get more leeway on certain T standards.

Presentation Preferences:

• Number your refutations.
• Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions that can be used in speeches.
• Present charismatically, make me want to vote for you as a communicator (though I vote off the flow).

Argumentation Preferences:

• Give me voter issues -- the big ballot stories of the round. Go big picture and frame how I'm supposed to look at issues.
• Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.
• I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.

Schools judged for: Marquette University High School, Rufus King High School, Ronald Reagan College Prep High School

Did not compete in high school

Style of debate judged: Lincoln Douglas (Often), Public Forum (Often), Novice Policy (3-4 times)

Speaking Speed: Students may go as fast or slow as they would like as long as their points can be easily heard and understood. If a crowd of people would be unable to understand you, you are speaking too fast.

Framework: I like a solid framework and a clear understood framework. Please make sure your value, value criterion, and contentions flow with you debate. I expect to see a value and value criterion in your constructive.

Reading plans, counterplans, or Kritiks are acceptable to debate.

Most important to a win: Strong framework, cross-ex to be able to defend and poke holes in the other debates framework, and strong rebuttal outlining your points.

Experience: 4 years (2015-2019) competing in LD + Congress at Wisconsin locals, NSDA/NCFL's, and on the national circuit. This is my second year judging LD.

Conflicts: Brookfield East

larp > trad/phil > Ks > theory > tricks

-I'm basically the same age as you, so definitely just call me Arjun (pronounced AR-juhn, if you need some help here you go). I use he/him pronouns.

-Read whatever you'd like! As long as doing so doesn't create an unsafe debate space for your opponent, make the arguments that you enjoy most. I'm most familiar with phil/larp/trad literature, but definitely don't let that stop you from running k args if that's what you're passionate about. I'll vote on tricks if substantiated, but definitely will not extend the unwarranted 3 second apriori at the end of your constructive.

-Assuming clarity, I'm comfortable flowing up to around this speed. Any more than that and I'm probably missing some important stuff. I'll yell clear/slow if need be.

-That being said, please use your best judgement to adjust to the conditions of the round; don't read your most complicated 5 offs at 400 wpm against a novice at their first tournament. I won't drop you for not doing so, but my frustration will be reflected in your speaker points.

-WEIGH EARLY WEIGH OFTEN

-I have a relatively high threshold for extensions; I need to hear a clearly articulated warrant before it goes on my flow. "Extend contention 1" isn't enough.

-Please don't go over time! Don't wait till after your timer goes off to give voters.

-I average around a 28 for speaks. The more good things you do the higher above that you'll go: collapsing in the 2NR/2AR, doing literally anything with framework, giving clear win conditions, getting big concessions in cx etc.

-Please please please use good evidence!!!! It feels like with every passing year our standards drop and cards get sketchier. I'll be very happy if you have full citations on all pieces of evidence and will give you a somewhat arbitrary nonzero bump in speaks.

Hit me up with questions via email: arjunshreekumar@gmail.com, text: 262-347-5599, messenger, ig, snap, whatever floats your boat.

Looking forward to meeting y'all in round :)

TL;DR: Do what you gotta do. I'm cool with whatever as long as you understand it and explain it so that I do too. I've got a decent background with progressive debate. Don't run anything bigoted or offensive, and don't be mean or rude to your opponent. Speed is fine & I'll say clear as much as I need to. If it isn't against tournament rules, please do go into the room before I get there to set up.

put me on the email chain: simsajaya@gmail.com

Longer version:

Background: I debated for Golda Meir for four years, policy for one year and LD for three. Currently the head coach at Homestead HS in Wisconsin.

Debate Stuff:

Preflow before you come into the round. Do not make us wait for you; it's very annoying.

Speed - Speed is fine, but do it well. Slow down on tags and anything else important. I'll say "clear" as much as I need to, but it'll hurt your speaks if I have to too much.

Framework (LD) - You should have at least some form of it. Whether that's a value/value criterion or a role of the ballot, there should be something telling me from what lens I should look at what you're saying. If you're running a plan and don't think you need one, at least try to fit under your opponents.

Theory - I'll listen to it, especially in the event of legitimate in-round abuse. Just make it make sense and have all the necessary components.

Kritiks - I like them! As I said, if they're very complex explain it well, but generally speaking, I like K's. I will like them even more if it's something you are passionate about and really enjoy reading. Do not run a K if you don't understand what you're running. I like kaffs a lot too.

Performance - Yes, please. The performance needs to be something you care about and you need to have a purpose. You should also explain in round impacts. I very much like performance and I very much like its purpose in the debate space.

Plans/CPs/PICS - I like plans and CPs in LD, but I don't enjoy PICs. I'll listen to them, but I generally find them abusive.

Impacts and stuff - I expect very clear voters. Tell me exactly what I need to vote on and why. I also expect that you show me what the aff world and the neg world both look like. Have clear impacts and always pull them through.

Other things:

- Don't be mean.

- Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and any other negative -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful.

- I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive.

- If there is an obvious skill difference between the debaters, I expect the more experienced debater to not make the round obnoxiously hard or discouraging. You should be able to win without scaring someone.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

I debated in the Wisconsin and national circuits for 3 years in LD. That being said, it's been four years since I last debated and 2 years since I last judged. I'm a little rusty with progressive so try sticking to lay cases - however I won't fault you if you feel the need to run a progressive case.

Attitude:

Be aggressive, not rude. I think this is obvious.

Timing:

I expect you to time yourselves and make sure you're sticking to the limits. I'll be keeping track of your prep time and will confirm how much you have left. Be wise.

Argumentation:

Don't bring up new arguments in the 2AR or 2NR, but you should know this.

If you're making non-topical/untopical arguments, I'll stop flowing.

Don't forget impacting - this will help show the magnitude of your arguments (mostly important when you have similar frameworks).

That being said, don't drop framework, especially if it's different to your opponent's. It's hard to vote for a debater who can't argue their case within FW. (I also really like seeing unique frameworks, not just regular util, but you need to make it work well)

Cases:

Email me your cases so I can follow along: tariknavya@gmail.com

Like I said earlier, it's best if you stick to traditional cases but I'm fine with Kritiks and CPs. (please make sure they're good though)

Don't be abusive.

Speaking:

Speak fast if you want, don't slur your words though.

You can spread, but don't do it just to get an upper hand for no reason. If you're being a jerk - auto drop.

If you're incomprehensible, I'll let you know max 2 times to fix it.

Language:

If you're being homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc, I'll auto drop you.

Decisions:

You can give me about 5 to 10 minutes after a round to make my decision. I will disclose and give you the RFD - this is going to be constructive criticism that I hope will help you in the following rounds.

Good luck in the round, and may the best debater win!

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.

Speaking:

Try not to go too fast! I have been a debater, but it's been a while since I've flowed anything too fast.

If you don't speak clearly, I won't say anything during your speech. Instead I'll ask clarification afterwards.

Evaluating the Round:

1. For framework, I look at who wins the framework debate in general, who has an easier to use framework, and who's framework is easiest to understand.

2. I don't really care about values. If you have one, great! If you don't, no worries.

3. I'm okay with plan texts, however with counterplans and kritiks I'm not too fond of them. I like to hear good conversation about the resolution; however if your CP and Kritiks makes sense I will listen to it and flow it. If it's too dense/esoteric/difficult to understand I won't be as interested. My general debate philosophy is to have quality discussion and be inclusive. If your reasoning for running what your running is for shock value or to disclude your opponent then you probably shouldn't run it.

4. When deciding who wins, I looked to see who has a better overall story and who has the most desirable world. If you do a great job of painting a picture of what will happen if I vote for you, I'm more likely to vote for you. Weighing, voter issues, and clear speaking are all great ways to do this.

Other information:

Be kind to your opponents. I will drop speaks and will probably give a loss to anyone who is condescending or disrespectful.