I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.

LD- I’d like to see a value and a criterion

I like flow debate, jargon is fine with me but if it's PF remember that it's supposed to be for the average individual to watch, so keep it minimal.

If you're running a K in LD you're really going to have to sell me on it, I'm not the biggest fan. If you run a K in PF it's going to be very difficult for you to pick up my ballot, but not impossible. I don't believe Ks capture the spirit of Public Forum debate, but if you have a legitimate K I'm not closed to the idea.

Like I said earlier, I like flow debate, meaning I like a lot of clash with your opponent's arguments. Evidence analysis is always a good thing, analyze their evidence for me. I enjoy being persuaded as well. With me, do your own style of debate, I'm probably going to appreciate that more than if you read this paradigm and try to debate with a different style. Not to say I don't think competitors can alter their style to meet specific judges, I just enjoy seeing debaters at their best.

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

About Me: I'm an attorney with a court of appeals. My job is basically to draft opinions in civil and criminal appeals for my judge. I competed in CX debate for 4 years. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and most drama categories at some point. I went to nationals in CX. I was the 2012 Oklahoma CX District, Regional, and State Champion.

TL;DR: I consider debate to be a game, which to me means two things: (1) I will not do your work for you, so tell me why you win; and (2) I will consider and vote on abuse-type arguments if you give me a good reason to do so. I prefer when debaters' arguments are intellectually consistent throughout the round.

I judge extemp using the standards on the ballot, which identifies several broad categories for evaluation. I score each category 0-10 and add up the total score. I also add a category for entertainment value, which I use only as a tie breaker. Highest score wins.

FOR ALL DEBATES:

In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain (1) why it is true and (2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. For example, if an affirmative has two reasons why universal child care helps the economy, and the negative provides two reasons why universal child care is bad for the economy, and the aff never answers the negative's points, the negative still needs to explain why their two points are more persuasive than the aff's two points. The fact that the aff didn't respond gives your points more weight, but only if you say so.

FOR ANY DEBATE WITH CARDS:

Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. For that reason, I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENT, "WE HAVE A CARD, AND THEY DON'T, SO WE'RE RIGHT." Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. AND PLEASE DO NOT REFERENCE CARDS BY THE AUTHOR/DATE. Reference the claim (Heg is good/bad, universal child care works/doesn't work, Space Force good/bad, sneezing to the left causes nuclear war, whatever). I may have missed the author or not cared enough about the argument to write it down.

I'm also not a fan of judge intervention. If you feel that your opponents have been dishonest or have provided an incomplete card (either with text missing or an incomplete citation), make that argument in your speech, tell me why I should care, and I will review the card after the round if necessary. The only other circumstance where I will read cards after a debate is if the debaters dispute their contents. Please do not ask me to read a card after the round if you did not read it during your allotted speaking time. I will not read it, I will consider that an attempt to increase the amount of your speaking time, and I will dock your speaker points.

FOR PF DEBATES:

I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed.

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer traditional framework, with clear contentions and sign posting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts (and please name these clearly).

If you run counterplans (I guess counterplans are a thing in LD now?), remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive argument that adopting the resolution and the counterplan is possible (a perm, in policy debate), I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan.

FOR POLICY DEBATES:

You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something.

Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting history:

One-Off Negs: I typically do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I have begrudgingly voted for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.

Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. In the past, I've voted negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative has shown (1) their interpretation is reasonable, (2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and (3) the affirmative's interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I have never voted neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, when the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I have not voted negative on topicality.

Kritiks: If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.

Counterplans: I've voted negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.

Theory: Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. In the past, I've voted on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I've voted aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I've never voted negative on theory, but I've considered it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.

Hello,

I am a student at the University of Oklahoma. Prior to college, I competed in speech and debate events for 8 years. My main events were LD, PF, DEX (a little FEX), PO, PR, SO and I went to nationals for world schools debate.

What I look for in debate rounds:

Civility. If you can not be civil in the round, you are not truly debating. It is okay to be passionate, but it is not okay to be rude.

Clarity. I do not want to struggle to understand you, your point, or what you are referring to.

What I look for in speech events:

Emotion. I want to feel something. If it's a humorous piece, I want to laugh. If it is dramatic, I want to feel the sorrow.

Quality selection. If you are doing a piece or a topic I have heard a million times, chances are you are not the best rendition I've ever heard. If you are doing a piece and someone else in the room is doing a similar one you will automatically be pitted against each other, so be wary of using common pieces/authors.

Overall, have fun. If you care about what you are doing, I promise it will show.

Best of luck.

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

About Me: I'm Bailey McBride (she/her), and I'm the marketing and communications manager for a beverage distribution company. I competed in LD and PF debate for 4 years of high school (Bishop Kelley, OK), and was the 2007 Oklahoma LD State Champion and a top 5 finisher in DEX. I went to Nationals in Student Congress. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and all drama categories at some point in that time. I debated 3 years in college (University of Arkansas).

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision. If you get into a back and forth about "cards" and waste your time on that over the greater issue of the round, I will not consider that compelling. Please have voting issues.

FOR PF DEBATES:

Public Forum debate should be conversational, respectful, and engaging. I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and will flow through anything that is not addressed by Summary. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

I am a parent and my kid is writing this paradigm. If you have a male judge it's the dad and he's more republican but argue well and you'll be fine. Mom/ lady judge is more liberal and she will also vote whatever. Don't remotely spread or talk heavily about debate lingo unless you explain it lol.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

simplify your arguments: please don't force me to think.

speak slow: i'm alright with speed, but I'll stop flowing when it sounds like you're wheezing and maybe call for help if you actually are. in other words, speak slowly and clearly if you want to be certain that i'm flowing what you're saying.

make it make sense: one of the most notable traits of mastery is the ability to teach your subject in various (and effective) ways. make sure to explain the logic or coherency of your argument in different ways just in case it doesn't translate well the first time. not only will you avoid sounding like a broken rambling record, but you can also use it to reinforce and emphasize your arg.

weigh: love to see it. don't just tell me that your argument or impact outweighs your opponents. explain how through different mechanisms (scope, time-frame, reversibility, probability, magnitude, etc) and if do it well, you'll incorporate more than one.

About Me:

I graduated from Claremore High in 2012 and competed primarily in LD debate from my Freshman to Senior year. I volunteer for my former debate coach who is now at Glenpool.

I now work for a large behavioral health non-profit as a quality improvement program evaluator. My education is in General Psychology and Sociology (Bachelors, Northeastern State University) and Experimental Psychology (Masters, University of Minnesota Duluth).

Expectations in LD Debate:

-Speak clearly and avoid speed talking. Higher speech points will be assigned to those who are concise, sign-post, and are less conversational (e.g., avoid colloquialisms).

-Obvious logical fallacies in rebuttals will always result in a loss of that contention.

-Your value and criterion should be referenced clearly and logically throughout your case and when and rebutting your opponent's arguments against your case.

-Focus more on the strengths of your case as affirmative and the negative should describe when the affirmative's burden is not met based on the resolution's most literal interpretation.

-Avoid rebuttals about "my study" versus "their study" and which has "holes." I don't have your evidence in front of me, so there is no way of knowing who is telling the truth or more accurately describing their evidence. If you must bring up study methodology, don't get into the weeds and always tie it back to the results and how it relates to your criterion.

This will be my 2nd ear judging. Being relatively new to judging, I really appreciate when the flow of the debate or forum is clearly called out (i.e. contentions, subpoints, voting issues). If I have to guess whether or not a competitor clearly rebutted a contention, or is stating a voting issue, I often assume it was not addressed.

I did PF for three years, becoming a state champion my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore at Princeton.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, Witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I loooove impact calculus, really gets me up in the morning. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable.

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why its a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.