As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

Any post-round questions can be directed to my email: kahnwiley@gmail.com

CX:

My background: the last time I debated (academically) was at the college level in parliamentary debate about ten years ago. I was very competitive, regionally, in policy debate in high school.

My general preferences/skills: I can flow fast enough to keep up with you. I will provide feedback if I can't understand you; this isn't meant to be disruptive but to ensure that I actually catch everything you're saying. I am probably not familiar with topic-specific arguments. I have worked in the legal field and politics, however, so I probably know a little more about how the justice system works than your average individual. Academically, I have a background in political theory, analytical and continental philosophy, and psychology (specifically cognitive biases). Go nuts about the K's; I get down with the social/critical theory and I'd love to learn some new stuff (explained well) from y'all. Procedurals are cool, too. I'll totally pull the trigger on some cheap shot independent voter if it is extended through the debate and articulated well in the rebuttals.

Oh, I also tend to like wacky arguments. Not bad arguments. But I loved going for arguments like de-dev and wipeout when I was debating. Don't take that as carte blanche to go completely off the rails, but it's nice to have a little levity in this event, and not hear the same generic econ or politics disad in every single round.

I'm willing to disclose my decision as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament and I'm willing to provide extended verbal feedback to competitors if so desired, whether immediately following the round or later on. Some judges don't like this, but I would prefer you ask me questions before the round: "how do you like this type of argument," "what's your threshhold for voting on a procedural," etc. This is more as a favor to you because I can't possibly cover every contingency in this paradigm.

Open CX is fine (as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament).

I'm tabula rasa but I will default policymaker in the absence of framework analysis.

Impact analysis/comparison is clutch. Timeframe, probability, magnitude, yo!

On speeding through analytics/procedurals: in debates where the teams are speeding through a lot of analytical arguments, I find it helpful to get a little pen (keyboard?) time to both flow and comprehend these arguments. If it just one one-sentence argument after another, I sometimes have difficulty adjusting to the sheer volume of arguments being made. I may flow them all but I do not think I will be able to do adequate analysis of these arguments if you do not provide sufficient explanation of each point. For instance, if you want me to flow your procedural voters, just rattling off that something "is a voter for fairness, education and ground" might be detrimental, if there aren't individual explanations as to why fairness is a voter, education is a voter, ground is a voter. Obviously if time is tight in the 1AR you will have to make a strategic choice how to allocate your time, but I don't think it will be beneficial to you if the coverage is superficial and the import on an individual argument is lost in the shuffle.

Addendum about K affs: I have noticed quite the disparity between the circuit-style "K Affs" (usually performative) that have proliferated, vs. the traditional style of policy debate that is still practiced at the other 95% of tournaments. I am okay with kritiks and critical literature, but I have very little tolerance for these cases that are essentially being formatted in this manner for strategic (rather than ethical or educational) purposes. Do not expect me to clap my hands with glee because you read a poem during the 1AC, had a moment of silence, didn't read a plan, etc. I think it's squirrelly and exclusionary. I understand the strategy: it does really limit the options the neg has. But that also means that I, as the judge, have to hear a bunch of rounds where the 1AC is performative, and the neg runs T. Does this mean you shouldn't run a K aff? Not necessarily. . . But it will probably elicit a deep sigh from me the moment you read a poem instead of a plan. I will definitely be leaning neg on presumption when their strategic options are reduced in this (or any similar) manner.

On speaker points: I attempt to assign points according to a rough bell curve distribution between 25-30 (or whatever the range is for your tournament). If you understand how statistical distributions work, you know this means you will not get a thirty from me. If you receive anything above 29, you should feel very good about your performance.

Also. . . have fun?

LD:

I competed in LD briefly in high school. My primary background is in policy debate, so I'll be flowing. Obviously, speed is fine, but make sure the other judges are cool with it, too.

Questions? Feel free to ask before the round.

Be excellent to each other.

PF:

I did this the first year they tried it out as "Ted Turner Debate" (sigh). It's definitely improved since then. I'm a policy judge so don't worry about going over my head. PF is very much about style and presentation, so I'm going to be placing a lot more emphasis on speaking skills, tone, nonverbals, etc. I view it as kind of a speech/debate hybrid: less analytical than policy but slightly deeper than StuCo. Not to undermine the value of argumentation (you will probably lose if your arguments suck), but I find that these PF topics are often politically loaded so as to be heavily biased toward one side or the other. I usually am aware of this and will not vote against you simply because you got stuck arguing for something that I absolutely morally abhor. Jokes are good. Politeness is good. Actually knowing what you're talking about is best. Above all, have fun!

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

WSD:

I judged this for the first time at nats in 2021 and rather enjoyed it. My related background: I competed in policy, LD, PF, extemp, humor and student congress in high school; in college, I was a member of the student government and competed in parliamentary debate (not British Parliamentary, which is the norm now, and much closer in format to WSD). At this point I have judged a far greater number of rounds than those in which I ever competed.

I will be "flowing" your arguments in a loose way but I will pay a lot of attention to delivery and presentation; I care less about a neat flow than getting a cohesive "story" from both sides. Answering arguments is important, but providing a solid case and returning to that original structure throughout your speeches is going to make your team look stronger overall.

Parli:

I debated in parli briefly in college. My paradigm for parli is roughly the same as my CX paradigm except you won't be reading cards to support your positions. Badgering your opponents with POI's is kinda a jerk move, but IMO, POI usage is a big part of the strategy of this event; honestly, it will reflect more poorly on the team being badgered if they do nothing to shut it down and allow their time to be monopolized by incessant interruptions from a more dominant team.

*Updated for 2023*

Experience:

2018-Present: Policy Coach at Rock Springs High School

2007-2011: NPTE Debate at University of Wyoming: Highest national ranking: 4th; 4x national qualifier for NPTE; attended NPDA/NPTE 6x’s (between both tournaments); highest placing at National Tournament: Semi-finalist; Between 2009-2012 ranked top 20 in NPTE points receiving First Round Bids.

2004-2007: Debate at Rock Springs High School in Rock Springs, Wyoming

Approximate number of rounds judged per year: 35+

Please add me to the email chain: etcheverryj@sw1.k12.wy.us 

Note: Over the past seasons, I have seen numerous teams use the ‘small schools’ argument on theory and procedural positions. Moving forward, I will not listen to, flow or evaluate these types of arguments. Being from a ‘small school’ with limited financial resources and limited ability to travel nationally, these types of arguments suppose that we as competitors have also a limited ability to intelligently evaluate and present competitive arguments due to our position in the community. Utilizing these arguments in order to establish a model of debate based in assumptions of limited abilities of teams, such as ours, is marginalizing our ability as competitors and individuals, it also places unrealistic perceptions of who we are as policy debaters, thus please refrain from reading these arguments. Fight against, what Brian Delong of IU calls "The Cult of the Card". Taking no notice of this position in round can effect speaker points awarded.

Note 2: NO NEW OFF-CASE POSITIONS IN THE 2NC, I WILL NOT FLOW IT!!!! (unless warranted by offensive language/actions, ethics violations, far-reaching 2AC abuses/skews)

Paradigm:

Average Speaker Points: 28.5

Spreading---X--------------------------------Conversation

Spreading is fine, speed is important but clarity is more important. Slow down on analytics, include them in the email chain. Also slow down 20% on tags and authors. Differentiate between tags and the internals of your cards. With the online format, make sure that you are either decreasing your speed on analytics or you are sending them out in the speech doc. I have noticed in cases that some analysis can get missed with the tubes of the internet.

Tech---------X---------------------------------------Truth

If it’s conceded it’s true; I'll pic out of really terrible arguments (racism, sexism, otherization, etc.), also reading more cards that aren’t true, doesn’t mean I will prefer.

Policy-------------------X---------------------Ks (Aff or Neg)

I am good with either a policy debate or K v. K debate; just make sure to explain your argument thoroughly.

Analytics---------------------------------X--Evidence

Analytics have their place, however they should be based in the literature, this also includes theory and theory blocks. Speaker points check...cite literature as an argument and I will bump up .5! (make sure I hear it!)

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

Conditionality is generally good, but I could be persuaded otherwise. This is a vote down the team theory approach.

Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP good--X------------------------------- Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP bad

The CP is an essential tool for the Neg, all are strategic. That being said I am open to theory objections and if won by the Aff, I will reject the argument (if indicated). For Courts CP, run them, but be able to clearly articulate how the Courts would be able to hear the Aff plan; be it a test case (include your test case, or be able to defend the timeframe deficit awaiting the next available test case) or defend SCOTUS using a Writ of Crit to rule. Also, it would be wise to include the basis of ruling within the text of the CP. Args directly questioning the mechanisms by which the CP functions and can be very persuasive for me.*

Politics DA good------------------X------------Politics DA bad

Read the appropriate Tix DAs and you’re good, however, as in 2020, reading Prez Tix DAs two days after the elections is frustrating. DO NOT DO IT!

1AR gets new args--------------X----------------------1AR doesn’t get new args

I will give the 1AR room to present new extrapolations of the Aff positions and to respond fully to the block, however running a new position/link turn/mpx turn or a new response to a Neg position isn’t the best and it’s probably too late in the debate to truly develop said position.

UQ matters most-----------------------------X---Link matters most

A solid link into an argument is incredibly important, no matter how unique an argument is, if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply!

Love T-X---------------------------------------------Hate T

I love T!! Evidence again is very important and please read it. I will prefer your standards if you have evidence supporting. Explain your mpx, violation and why you should win. Make sure that if you are going for T, either send a doc with analytics or ensure that you are clear.

Limits------X----------------------------------------Ground

Generics solve your ground claims, all though they might not be the most in-depth or educational, they do provide access to clash, and even if they are generic, there is evidence that supports those claims which is still educational. Limits, however, means that the Neg can produce in-depth arguments due to having a limited research burden and lit base.

Fairness is an mpx--------------------------------X-----Education is an mpx

Debate is a game, but, it is a game is which the motive is academic.

Reasonability------------------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Reasonability opens the door for judge intervention, what I believe is reasonably topical and what the next person does, is inherently different. I’d rather hear the mpx of topicality weighed as a net benefit to the presented interpretations.

Longer ev--------------------X---------------------More ev

Whatever way you want to present your evidence is up to you. Your evidence represents your argument, not the tag, if the tag is misrepresentative or an embellishment of the ev then that argument will be given less weight in the round*

"Insert this rehighlighting"--------X---------------I only read what you read

I will only evaluate only what is read during the speech act, unless told to evaluate a rehighlighting (should be sent in the doc) or told to evaluate a card vs. another card.

Durable FIAT solves circumvention--------------------X---Durable FIAT is not a thing

There are a number of ways that a position can be undermined that FIAT cannot account for. However, FIAT would protect teams from args like “plan doesn’t pass”.

Secrecy-----------------------------X-Disclosure

A team doesn't need to hide their argument or not disclose their arguments, not disclosing makes for a sloppy debate and a bunch of people not knowing what is going on.

Analytic Perm-----------------------------X-Evidence-based Perm

The words "Perm Do Both" (or similar analytics) mean nothing to me unless you explain how it functions, what level of competition the perm is testing and read evidence indicating a net benefit to said perm. BTW...I love the perm debate!

Existential Mpx---------------X-----------------Systemic Mpx

Tell me how to vote and what mpx to evaluate. This is also more of mpx weighing analysis, not framework. Framework is how debate should be or included within the realm of debate. Mpx prioritization is a question of the specific magnitude of that mpx.

Letter of the Plan Text-X------------------------Intent of the Plan Text

In regards to construction of the plan/counterplan/advocacy/permutation texts, I have a high threshold for properly written texts, meaning that text must do what is indicated that it will do. In a number of rounds, I have found that teams seems to misunderstand or misrepresent what the letter of the text actually would do. This can be as easy as using the wrong diction, syntax and/or semantics...for example using "apart" meaning not a part of vs. what is intended "as a part of" in the text. Just the simple change to this verbiage means that the functional implementation of the policy would be drastically different and not uphold what the solvency advocate intends. Prior to the round please evaluate texts, and the opponent texts as I am willing to vote/reject on miswrote texts in round, however it does have to be on the flow for me to vote.

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Tabula Rasa. I am willing to hear any argument. Counter-plans, Kritiks, etc. are okay. I debated Policy 4 years/briefly in college and can keep up with speed if necessary.

The debate space is one for you, not me, so do as you please. Anything goes, have fun, do your best.

Congress

I have limited experience judging, so go easy on me. I will be flowing arguments on my computer so don't feel the need to look at me. I am not much one for pathos as I am for ethos and logos so take that into mind.

LD

I weigh the debate based off the value/criteria. The person who best meets these is the one who wins, and if neither side provides one I may be obliged to vote neg on presumption. Winning that you have a better value is not enough to win the debate. Winning that you meet the criteria wins you the debate. Citing that they broke a rule (besides lying about a card) probably won't get you very far with me. I am an anything goes judge, so run as you please as long as your opponent is not skewed out of the round.

CX/PF

I will divert to a cost/benefit analysis if a framework is not given. I also assume the negation is status quo if a counter advocacy is not given. Citing link/impact turns will get you very far with me as it is easy offense to apply across case. If there are card contentions I will read them at the request of the debaters. Generally I think speed has its limit, so go fast but not so fast that I can't get your taglines. I have 4 years of collegiate debate experience but I am not a god at speed. Also, be nice during cross. I find pompous people won't lose on attitude but may be deducted speaker points.

Please do not spread. I appreciate that you have a lot to say in a limited time, but if I cannot understand you, or if you make it to where I don't want to understand you, then you might as well say nothing at all.

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

Judge Paradigm for Jeff Pope

I would describe myself as a policymaker. I also enjoy good in-depth topicality debates..But I am open to all arguments, including Kritiks. Although I have a higher threshold for voting critical arguments, including a requirement for the neg to read an alternative. Speed is fine, provided you are clear. Theory is also fine, but to win on theory requires that you do work to explain the impacts.

I also expect competitors to display good sportsmanship. Rudeness will impact speaker points.

If anyone has specific questions, please let me know.

I will entertain topicality arguments. If the negative reaches the high bar of topicality, and convinces me that the affirmative case is not topical, the negative wins. Otherwise, my decision will be weighted 60% stock issues, 30% communication skills as generally accepted by the public, and 10% debate theory.

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. No one (including me) should have to ask you to slow or clear multiple times. In general, I'm not a fan of speeches that spread the entire time. Just talk to me and make arguments... it's better for both of us.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO provide impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete.

DO affirm the topic in ***some*** way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be EXTREMELY clear on why that is fair to your opponent (it probably isn't, especially in LD). There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways.

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: lwzhou10 at gmail.com

---

TOC Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the TOC, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the tournament policies. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

Additionally, I expect that your evidence abides by NSDA rules as outlined in the NSDA Evidence Guide. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together—even better.
5. Give judge instruction—tell me how to evaluate the debate.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.