stop reading this its embarrassing

I'm a high school debater pronouns she/her

I can flow fast speeches, but online debates lend themselves best to slightly slower speakers. If you're speaking too fast for my internet connection, I will ask you to slow down.

I judge based on arguments not style. Speaker points are awarded based on the quality of your argumentation, not the quality of your speaking style. For rebuttal speakers, quality argumentation means effectively collapsing arguments and weighing. If you just repeat your arguments in a rebuttal speech, you're not doing your job.

I like examples. Since it's parli debate, that includes hypothetical examples. Please extend your arguments in constructives by giving new examples, new evidence, or new warranting or impacts. I don't like it when debaters repeat what their partners have already said. It's boring for me and it does nothing for your case.

Theory: I'm not a fan of theory. Unless your opponents have committed a crime against nature, I don't expect to be receptive to it, but I'll try my best to understand where you're coming from. Kritiks must be linked into the topic for me to be receptive to them. I also have veeerrry little experience when judging/understanding kritiks so please go slow and easy with me.

Be respectful! I don't ask for pronouns because no one should be forced to explain their pronouns but don't assume your opponents' pronouns. I'd prefer you say "my opponent" than "he" or "she".

Solid weighing, and put the words in my mouth assume I don't know how to think anything that isn't basic linking weight and impacting needs to be done for me to put it on my flow.

Hey there! I'm Annie/Yuqi Liu (pronouns she/her), and I'm a parliamentary debater on the East Coast. Hence, I'm unfamiliar with West Coast parliamentary norms, and I may also be unfamiliar with jargon from other debate formats. I do have experience judging parliamentary and CTMSDL.

With that in mind:

- Please speak in laymen's terms or tabula rasa

- Only use topicality against abuse

- If you do use theory, explain it thoroughly - this is both for me and your opponent

- Be clear and organized; outline your contentions (claim, warrants, impacts) and clash

- Weighing and analysis is very important!

- For novice debaters: please refute your opponents with more than just with one-liners; don't just state your case and not counter your opponent's case. Remember that my job my job is to decide whether you or your opponent convinces me more. I don't want to and will not do the refuting/weighing/impacting for you

About speed: if you start going too fast I'll tell you during the round, but so long as you're not spreading you should be fine.

Above all, remember to have fun and be courteous! I'll do my best to be a fair and considerate judge in return :)

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Hello! My name is David and my pronouns are he/him. I have been debating for about 3 years in a variety of debate formats. I like to see lots of reasoning and impacts in addition to your evidence. Do not just give evidence and assume that everyone understands the reasoning! Also, be sure to explain to me why your world wins OVER THE Opp world if you are Prop as you have the burden of proof. Make sure that you are providing lots of clash to the other team to create a better and more educational debate. Try not to make abusive definitions or frameworks as it doesn't make the debate fun or educational.

I am a HS debater with many years of debate experience.

Just debate. I can handle spreading, won't evaluate K's or theory unless it's really (read:really) well warranted, and I enjoy good rounds.

I'm not here to restrict your style. Basically, do whatever you'd like. If it's fun and interesting, great. If not, meh. I'll still vote for you, but there won't be a smile on my face while I do it.

Some things about me:

I am a high school East Coast parli debater with about 4+ years of experience. I am a flow judge who prefers truth > tech.

Things I like:

Strong warranting and link chain analysis.

Absurd and interesting argumentation (only if it's well warranted)

Weighing major ideas

Organized speeches - signposting makes my day

Every time you make me laugh = +1 speaker point

Thing's I don't like:

K's. I will still vote on K's, but unhappily.

Spreading. It gives me a massive headache.

If you say the word "impact calculus" and don't actually weigh! I will bang my head on the table.

Example tennis. Examples are not the same as warrants.

Rude or pretentious debaters