Hey guys! My name is Drew (he/him). I am a sociology and philosophy major. I competed in LD for 3 years-I ran primarily larp positions, but dabbled in phil debate. Most of my 2nrs were Cap, collapsing to a DA, turns, or T. My aff's were primarily big stick plan affs, but I've debated pretty extensively with soft left affs (my favorite was hegemonic masculinity on the nukes topic). Yes, I wanna be on the email chain, beckerandrew292@gmail.com. Feel free to send me some memes afterwards, too.

- Novices: Don't worry about the points presented below. Do whatever you're most comfortable with, I'll try to adapt to your style.

O/V

1. Tech > truth, but don't read impact turns to racism, etc. Dropped arguments are true, but are not weighed unless extended. For personal reasons, I'd prefer if you didn't read death good in front of me.

2. Condo is good, but my opinion can be changed on this.

3. K debate is fun

4. I love disads/counterplans

5. (for idaho) I'm totally chill with speed, check with your opponents.

6. Don't be a jerk.

7. If your strategy is tricks, strike me.

Idaho Trad LD stuff

-I love framework clash. Explain why your value outweighs their's and why yours is met throughout your case. Actually engage with their value and vc, treat it like an external contention (with that said, I much prefer a standard/rotb as opposed to v/vc debate)

-Tell me why you weigh under their framework AND why yours is better. That's not specific to me as a judge, it's just general debate advice lol.

- I don't mind if you do or don't do voters. If you do, meta-weighing and link-strength arguments should be one of them. I'll evaluate everything through the lens of the winning framework, so keep that in mind (ie. if you know you're losing to deontology, your time would be better spent extending arguments that weigh under deont) If you don't do voters, that's cool too.

-Speed: I think spreading is a natural side effect of complex debate, but I think it makes debate more ivory tower and elitist if both sides aren't on the same page. Check with your opponent before you spread, especially if spreading isn't the norm in the circuit. I've never had an issue with speed, but I will yell "clear" if you are going too fast, and I will not penalize someone for being unable to flow an argument. If I don't flow an argument in the speech that the argument is presented in, I will not weigh it. Slow down on taglines, make sure that interps are included in the doc.

PF Specific stuff

-I prefer line-by-line over crystalization

-Run whatever you want, I'll listen to any Ks or Theory, but ask your opponents first. It's the nice thing to do.

-I'll boost your speaks if you run a unique politics or econ argument that I haven't heard on the topic before.

Long form (Circ LD and Policy)

Affs: I love big stick affs and soft-left affs, but I'll vibe with anything. I think that the 1ac should be your best speech. I am a firm adherent to the belief that the best aff strategy is to force your opponent to engage with the substance, whether that be through framework or preempts, so take that as you will.

-Solvency matters the most to me, if you can win that your impact is larger and that you solve the impact, you will win the round 99/100 times.

-If your impact is something incredibly large, like nuclear war or extinction, i'll be less forgiving about the internal link. Link defense would be your best 1ar strategy

Disads: I love disads. I think that it becomes tricky to weigh between two equally large impacts, so do meta-weighing when against a big stick aff.

-I don't think uniqueness controls the strength of the link.

-Internal links are important to me and should be clearly warranted (if you have to question whether you have enough warrants, you don't. add more).

-Well-executed turns are the most persuasive and fun arguments to judge.

CPs: CPs are a great truth testing mechanism.

-I think international/private actor fiat is bogus, but if you theoretically justify it, I'll let it slide.

-conditions cp/consult cp can be beaten by perm pretty easily, and perm do aff isn't an argument.

-I think pics are fun, word pics are cool, and pic bad theory is kind of dumb, but i'll vote on it if it is REALLY convincing.

-Have the text in the doc or I won't evaluate it.

Theory: go for it.

-RVIs end up being silly 9/10 times, but if you think the shell was egregious enough, chances are I do too.

-Again, I believe condo is infinite, good, and a logical consequence of debate's structure, but my mind can be changed on this (especially with a time-skew warrant).

T: I need strong impacts, limits, and grounds arguments.

-Impact calc is the absolute most important thing.

-You can't just prove that they violate your interp, tell me why that matters.

Phil: Read anything! I love philosophy so much.

-Kant affs are trite, but they're a pretty solid strategy.

-Bonus points if you read something fun and unique, like Sartre, Heidegger, Plato, etc. Make it interesting.

-Most of my phil background is in analytic phil (I'm doing research work with Symbolic logic, modality, and set theory if that matters to anyone)

-Because of my Phil background, I think about arguments axiomatically. If the argument cannot be proven to be logically valid, you're doing something wrong. Conversely, if you perform the entire proof, I guess you would win? idk

Kritiks: The link chain is the most important thing to me.

-Specific links are infinitely better than generic links, which are infinitely better than links of omission.

-You don't have to win the alt to win framework, and strategic use of framework (once won) to preclude access to impacts is a totally rad strategy.

-"reject xyz" isn't really an actionable alt.

For postmodern/high theory stuff, I have a precursory understanding, but still please explain. The K base i'm least familiar with is probably Bataille or Lacan.

K affs/non-T affs: They're cool, I'm just kinda dumb so explain everything thoroughly.

Tricks: I'm not your guy. I won't vote on them.

LD specific stuff

-going for nebel T in front of me is not a good strat, it's stupid and can be beaten by saying "plans are good lmao" and moving on.

-I read util almost exclusively in highschool, I think that util is the best framework for debate. (-0.2 speaker points every time you say "Util justifies genocide", it doesn't lmao)

-reading whole rez is chill, but I think they're harder to weigh (and subsequently harder to win), I will vote almost automatically on any pic that solves the aff.

-floating pics are stupid lol

-If anyone cares, I went through a skepticism phase, but i'm sort of predisposed to believe it is just an untrue argument, I think it is easy to beat by just proving another meta-ethic true-but read it if you want lol, i'll do my best to set aside my preconceptions.

General Stuff Regarding Conduct

-Don't misgender or deadname your opponent. I will drop speaks, and then drop the debater.

-Conversely, if you ever feel uncomfortable at any time during the round, send me an email and I'll act accordingly.

-Again, don't read any blatantly offensive positions or engage in violent, targeted rhetoric, it makes debate an inaccessible place.

-Don't read shoe theory, you're doing the debate space a disservice. I'll drop you.

-if you explain L'insu que sait de l'une-bévue s'aile à mourre to me, I'll buy you coffee or something.

I am a recent college graduate with 5 years of speech and debate experience, including PF (State level), Congress (State level), Duo Interpretation (State Level), and Original Oratory (National Level). I have a background in Political Science and Public Policy.

For PF:

- I value clarity over all else. Please make your arguments clear enough that even someone with minimal knowledge of the topic can follow you. I am willing to accept seemingly obvious/underdeveloped impacts so long as the claim and warrant are strongly connected.

For LD:

- For LD I am primarily a Tabs judge. Speaker points and strong Value/Criterion are important to me.

Hello Fellow Speech Artists!

My name is Wade Bergstrom and I am the Speech and Debate teacher/coach for Middleton High School. Besides being actively involved in my own program, I was also a speech, debate, and drama competitor throughout my own high school days at Minico High in the 1990's. I debated mostly policy (which was vastly different than today) and LD. These are my preferences in a debate round:

Rule #1 RESPECT! any competitor that I feel is being rude, mocking, or talking down to another person will notice in their speaker points.

I dislike spreading.... Okay, I HATE spreading! I pride on my ability to flow, but if you sound like an auctioneer (or Eminem on "Rap God/Godzilla") I am going to put down my pen and stare off into space wishing for the moment your "speech" ends. Needless to say, but if I can't flow it then it never happened. Interpret that how you may.

For Policy I am obviously a traditionalist. Kritiks are wasted on me. Stick to stock issues and you will do well.

For LD. I am a sucker for persuasion. Give me your best value and criterion argument and compel me to vote for your position.

Public Forum, be well prepared by having good cards and clearly lay out your case. Convince me.

I hope this helps and I wish you all success. Remember to HAVE FUN!

Debate:

I prefer that you articulate your arguments with intent to persuade me. Therefore, don't spread because I do not find it persuasive.

I do not like off time road maps but I allow them.

I will not time the transfer of evidence but prep time starts once you have the evidence.

Please advance the debate rather than repeat contentions.

I enjoy appropriate clash. I expect civility even in heated cross examination.

I disapprove of tag teaming but I will not score it down unless it becomes too excessive.

In LD I expect the debater will make it very clear how the case upholds the value. I score down when the value debate becomes separate from the evidence based debate and neither support the other in any clear manner.

Speech:

I look for the speaker to make connection with the audience. Points are given when you can create an audience impact through emotion or logic.

In interpretive events and OO I expect very clean and precise blocking.

In extemporaneous and impromptu events I expect structured speeches with a sense of polish despite the short prep time. I will score down if an impromptu speech appears canned or the connection to the selected topic is a stretch.

Keep your arguments or speech courteous and respectful. Support each statement well and speak clearly.

For Debate events: Do your best to flow the arguments and address them in order. I do not score kritiks or theory and would likely be classified as a stock issues judge and appreciate a line by line approach.

For Speech events: Spreading will not earn speaker points unless everything you say has value. I value substance over speed when speaking. It is quite possible to speak quickly and steadily and say nothing of any impact. It is more important to fill your words with well-supported arguments or persuasive evidence than to fill your time with words.

Present yourself professionally in how you dress and interact with others.

Feel free to email with questions after the event. Scarpenterlaw@gmail.com

This is my second year judging. I am just happy to be here to help! I normally judge speech. I would appreciate you timing yourselves and being super clear in the arguments you make.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Paradigm for Congress

I have judged Congress about 4 times, but not this year.

I'm looking for quality argumentation--a clear warrant and and impact included in any argument you give.

I'm looking for FRESH ideas, not a repetition of arguments that have already been made in the round.

I'm looking for refutation when another debater offers a counter-argument to your argument.

I AM LOOKING FOR STATESMANSHIP. Statesmen and women are skilled and respected legislators. They are not bullies. They do not have hidden agendas. Their goal is to work for the common good of the people they represent and the nation. This is the kind of behavior I want to see in this mock legislature.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. A speaking pace a bit faster than normal conversation is fine. However, spreading has been used to manipulate the rules and turn policy debate into something it was never meant to be. That has taken over policy, so I accept it, but don't try to do the same in other forms of debate.

Except for in Public Forum, I am a “flow” judge. Be sure to roadmap and signpost. Don't drop points unless you have decided they don't matter to the issue. I will weigh who won each point and then determine which points are most critical to the issue in determining who won the debate.

Since Public Forum is intended to be judged by lay people and end with a summary and focus that are about the most important issues from the debate, public forum is not intended to require that students continue debating every point until the end of the debate. Thus, claims that someone dropped your point during one of the last 3 speeches don't matter unless that point seems more important than whatever the other side did say. I will still flow because that's how I'm used to taking notes, but the vote will be based on who made the most convincing arguments overall rather than on a careful consideration of who won each point.

Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments and be backed up by solid reasoning.

You should have evidence beyond what is in your cases. Please use it.

When refuting, please be specific about how your arguments apply to each contention and subpoint.

Topics reflect concerns in our society. Case approaches should always consider the framers' intent.

Tabula Rasa - As much as is possible, my vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present rather than on what I know or believe.

Be polite and take it seriously. Debate is about communication, and manners are a very important part of communication.

I am Ridgevue's speech and debate coach.

I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.

Overall, have fun, it's your debate.

My biggest paradigm is civility. Keep the arguments courteous and well supported. Speak clearly. Keep track of points and counterpoints and address them as best you can. Present yourself professionally in how you interact with others.

Even though I am an amateur judge I have been judging for over 15 years.

For debate, I do like the cross examinations because this is where I can judge if both sides know what they are talking about. To me, a lot can be accomplished in cross exam. In cross exam, one has to be courteous though to allow your opponent to answer the questions asked. As far as the flow - I like a medium well articulated speed, someone who speaks fast I usually will not be able to follow. As far as voters and the other technical aspects of debate, I don't weigh that as much as which side can persuade me that their argument is better and presented better than the other side. One more thing to add, everyone has an opinion on the topics you are debating, I want to assure you that I have a very open mind and will not be biased either way - it is up to you to persuade me on which side wins the debate.

For speech, please articulate well, do not use "ums" or "likes", just pause if you forget the next word. Never apologize for a mistake, more than likely most judges won't know until you bring it up. Most of all have fun. For speeches, the student who I judge to be the best is the person who has followed the criteria/rules for their category and are the ones who "move" me, the ones who I can empathize with.

I would like to add one more thing, all of the students who enter these tournaments, who go through the rigors of creating and then performing in speech and debate tournaments I think are some of the brightest and best prepared students for the future. I would like to commend all of the students I judge and wish them all the best in the future. I applaud your efforts!

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

Hi, my name’s Sunny Nelson, this is my third year as an assistant coach and my fourth year judging debate. I did public forum and congress, and I also did theater in high school. It’s very difficult for me to describe my paradigm because there is no ONE surefire way to win the round in my eyes. I will be flowing, and I will be paying attention to your communication skills (delivery, body language, etc). Below are some FAQs to help guide you.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS even when there is not a pandemic. Air high fives are my preferred alternative.

Kritiks: Acceptable, though I’d prefer you debate the topic.

Counterplans: Good, great even. I like seeing a good counterplan, but I hate condo. If you’re just gonna kick the CP in the 1NR then don’t run a CP.

Topicality: I like topicality when it’s done well, but I think everyone runs T the same, so I’ve grown bored with it.

Theory: Okay with theory, I think it stimulates discussion and furthers the progress of debate, but same with Ks, I would prefer you debate the topic.

Time: You may finish the sentence you are on when time is complete. I will verbally cut you off if you continue to speak past that. Self-timing is okay.

Masks: Off while speaking, if that applies to you.

Speed: I’m comfortable with it but I have no problem telling you to clear your diction up if I can’t understand you

Tag-teaming: Acceptable in policy, but overstepping will cause a loss in speaker points for the current speaker if I feel that they’re relying too hard on their partner.

Strategic dropping: I appreciate strategically dropping arguments as long as you explain why you’re dropping. Do this with caution because if you drop an argument that I really liked, then you might lose.

Evidence exchanges: Finding evidence is off time. Looking at evidence is on time. Discussing evidence is prohibited outside of cross-examination.

Impacts: If you’re bringing up impacts, use impact calc.

Extinction impacts: If you’ve had me as a judge before, you should already know this. I do not weigh extinction impacts. If your opponent brings up extinction, I still want you to address it for flowing purposes, but please do not impact calc it out and use extinction as a voter. The reason why is because I think that extinction is too heavy of an impact to weigh fairly in a debate, and I try to not have "instant wins" in any of my rounds.

Value-criterion and framework debates: I use the VC/FW debate as a way to develop a lens for the rest of the debate. A VC/FW should never be used as a voter. Instead, you should tell me which VC/FW to prefer and why your case meets the VC/FW better. I typically prefer the debater that can tell me why their case meets both value-criterions/frameworks, but if you outright disagree with your opponents VC/FW, don’t concede just because you think it’ll make me happy.

Decorum: Please remain professional during rounds. Some light joking can be appropriate but points will be docked if it gets out of hand. Rude/disrespectful behavior will result in an immediate loss regardless of how good I think your arguments are.

I was never a competitor.

This is my 6th year judging HS speech and debate and first year as a Coach

I do not like spreading.

LD Debate:

I take framework into consideration, but not as much as arguments.

Policy Debate:

I prefer quality and content over speed. I can usually follow , but I want to understand your argument, not just hear it.

Kritiks are not welcome.

I have a background in law and policy. My paradigm for judging debate is to award the most logically coherent and well presented arguments. I don't care which side you are on, I will reward you if you make a well reasoned arguments that address the issue at hand. I am looking for you to advance your cause and refute your opponents arguments in a direct, compelling and clear way. Dodging, bringing up irrelevant points, and failing to try to refute your opponents key arguments are things that I will hold against you.

Good luck! I am very proud of you for having the courage to compete and the willingness to work hard to prepare. I look forward to hearing you debate!!

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

PF

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

Being a somewhat new judge, I will be looking for clear, concise and slow speaking. Good preparation and respect for all.

I judge primarily on the clarity of arguments and the communication/speaking skills used. Please speak clearly, I can handle somewhat fast talking but not a crazy amount.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

I am an experienced judge. I competed in high school and college speech and debate. Since 2010, I have been an assistant and head coach in the Treasure Valley as well as judge in both the Idaho circuit and national circuit. I have judged at the NSDA National tournament 3 times during this time and at out of state TOC bid tournaments including Alta, Berkeley, Gonzaga and Puget Sound.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear and can sign post well. I prefer a clean and easy to follow/flow debate round.

I tend to be a quality of argument and impact judge. In other words, a well constructed case with good analysis that provides clear links and impacts.

Of course, a courteous debate round is expected.

If you talk too fast, I'm not going to follow it. Be respectful, but clash is okay.

I judge primarily on speaking skills, clarity of argument, and chain of logic. I am good with speed as long as speakers articulate clearly and crystalize points.

Please feel free to direct more specific questions to nwilloughby98@gmail.com

I have competed in policy debate at the University of Puget Sound since 2017.

Short Version: Run whatever you want in front of me as long as it is not an anti-ethical position. I am open top be persuaded by most arguments that are warranted and impacted out.

Long Version: I think debate is a s competition, but to only categorize it as so would essentialize the community and investments in this activity. I am open to performance, policy, FW, conversation debate, as long as you have some justification for your model of debate I can vote on it. In round violence performed through rhetoric or otherwise is very serious and can outweigh any extinction impact scenario.

I think that warranted and impacted analytics have just as much weight in round as cards being read. Also, reading a card is not an argument, it must be contextualized and analyzed from your position for it to mean anything in round.

Although I listen to FW debates, I prefer when there is a creative/non-generic position that is upheld in these type of debates. One-off FW on the neg without the aforementioned creativity is boring and no one wants to have those debates. That being said, you do you and just be able to justify your position and if it is compelling I will vote on it.

T shells need TVA's to be voting issues. Please articulate what ground is lost to the other team so this can be flushed out and nuanced.

I think impact framing is imperative to the rebuttal speeches, but needs to be introduced before the 2NR and 2AR. You don't needs cards to make these args, just reasons to prefer.

As far as K debate goes, I have knowledge on most bodies of literature. I do K debate, and run arguments about Settler Colonialism, gender and queer args, anti-statism generally, Deleuze, Foucault, etc. I'm a political theory major so I also have my foot into liberalism, fascism, etc. I am open to any type of K you decide to run. As far as winning K debates, I think the link needs to be specific to the Aff and also needs an impact. K's don't need alts but they are very helpful as they can frame your solvency to both the links and the DAs made.

Finally, I think the performance in-round is a voting issue on top of the in-round abuse i detailed above. Eg debate is a rhetorical/performative event and I treat it like so. Make your speeches good, don't sound like a robot, and BE CLEAR! If you sacrifice clarity for speed I will take off speaker points. I prefer clear, slow arguments to fast, hasty ones that lost their parts. However, if you're fast and clear I can flow you just be aware of whether or not I am flowing because I will stop if I don't know what you're saying.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!