hey i'm (sri) nithya (she/her)

mcneil '23, ut '27

if i'm judging anything but ld, everything down below applies but just ask me for specifics before round

add me on the email chain: nithyachalla05@gmail.com

t/l

i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.

assume i know absolutely nothing about the topic or current politics when debating because i probably won't.

i'll default to substance first unless told otherwise.

i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.

also refer to me however you feel like i don't care enough to get mad about what you call me in round.

ill give relatively high speaks- to increase your speaks, make me laugh.

for speaks boost throw in a reference to the latest jjk chapters.

pref sheet

1- cp/disad, kritiks

2- phil, theory

3- non t affs, tricks, trad

if you're a trad debater, just debate how you're most comfortable debating.

cp/disad: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. link and impact turns are offense on a disad- pls don't concede them.

phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.

kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should have and it's definitely not hard to answer.

non t affs: go for it. i barely read these but i've debated enough to understand the strategic value and implications of reading them. try to be creative in your approach in answering these tho bc those rounds are hella interesting.

theory: not my favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and education are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well.

tricks: i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- you will lose me.

if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. please dont postround too much i beg.

PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.

PF Paradigm

I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.

-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.

-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.

-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.

-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.

-Defense is not sticky.

-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.

-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.

-There is no reason for a plan or CP.

-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.

-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.

LD Paradigm

The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.

I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.

I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

I competed in Congressional Debate for four years at McNeil High School. I now attend Texas A&M University and use she/her pronouns.

I believe respectful clash is necessary to Congress. Key word being respectful.

Show the impact of you argument and why your side wins the debate.

I really like it when people flip speeches to the needs of the round because I think it means that you have a full hand on the debate.

I love interesting intros/Taylor Swift intros/respectful humor in speeches. Congress speeches should be dynamic and interesting.

Please don't give constructive speeches late in round. I want to see clash/crystals/adaptation. I am also pretty against rehash. Every speech should add something new to the round.

I consider POs for all ranks (including first). However, I am also pretty harsh on POs, especially in finals rounds. Please don't use POing as an easy break/easy way to get top 5. That being said, if you are a good PO I am willing to rank you accordingly.

Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.

Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.

Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.

SPEED

I'm comfortable with speed. But, with that said you need to be clear, you ideally do not do weird distracting things (like GASPS of air), you ideally slow down on tags, you ideally slow down when reading plan text/advocacy statement.

I ultimately flow based on what I hear within a round regardless of what you think you may or may not have said. I will "clear" you if you are egregiously unintelligible but that's probably a bad sign if I need to do that. If after I "clear" you and I still find myself struggling significantly with quality of presentation I will literally stop flowing for as long as I need to. With all of that said though, I do have a fairly high tolerance for speed.

There is one more important caveat I think it's necessary to say here: if you are able to spread and your opponents are clearly not able to handle it (e.g. literally cannot flow) I expect you to adapt to the round (i.e. do not steamroll a team because you are able to overwhelm them with quantity of arguments). Speed is a tool in the world of debate and I fully expect you to use it but not at the point where it becomes abusive for the other team and takes away from the educational value of the round for all parties.

LINE-BY-LINE

Please try your best to stick to the structures of the round. Please do your best to frame your arguments in the "They say but we say" structure. Even if things get messy, please do your best to consolidate, group, or summarize arugments together and respond to them in a clear manner. Try and not jump all over the place.

With all of that said, I think this is a skill that all debaters aspire for. Sometimes rounds get messy and all I really do is ask that you do your best to try and line up your arguments as best as you can. The effort is important at the end of the day. I know all judges like a clean line-by-line, and I know that it can get lost in the moment, so... all I ask is that you try your best (cause, let's be honest, is there going to be a judge that ever says "No line-by-line"?)

SIGNPOST

Part and parcel with the idea of line-by-line format is signposts. I think it's incredibly important for teams to make sure they give proper sign posts. Give me a remider of where you are, let me know where I should be flowing, let me know what's going on. Give me a sign that you're about to move to the next card (usually a "AND NEXT" is a good indicator). Signposts help keep you organized, help your opponent stay organized, and helps the judge stay organized. It's an important skill to have... and all I ask is that you try your best.

ROADMAP

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

TAG TEAM

Tag teaming is okay as long as 1) the other team is okay with it and 2) as long as it is not abused. The person being questioned should be responding to a majority of the questions. The partner should be able to help but should absolutely not be dominating the cross-ex. Keep it minimal if you are not "standing up" during cross.

DEFAULT PARADIGM

I like policy rounds. I think debate is a forum for analyzing policy so my default is always to be a policy maker. But, with that said, I've been engaged in this activity enough that I also just see it as a free-form open game space for debaters to discuss whatever issues, in whatever format they want to. If you are making arguments that deviate outside of the traditional policy arguments that's totally cool! I'm down (with caveats I'll explain on each specific argument below) but you need to give me a paradigm to judge in otherwise it probably won't go in your favor (or at least it'll be more of an upward climb).

THEORY

I used to debate theory all the time. I don't think abuse necessarily has to be proven within a round to win this argument. I do think you need to make well articulated, well warranted, well impacted out arguments though. I am more on the side of rejecting the argument and not the team but depending on the flow of the round I can be convinced otherwise. I think a well run theory argument is something a debater can fill a full 8 minutes with, if necessary. That is the level of analysis I love for theory. The quick 10s blips are not particularly compelling.

K

Okay. I really do like Ks. BUT I need to see that the team running it (whether as a negative argument or aff advocacy statement) has a very good understanding of the Kritikal arguments. I think too many K cards are incredibly power tagged and full of unnecessary jargon. Keep things simple, pretend I've never heard of your literature/author, and explain it to me, do not assume I know your literature or author. For example, if you use the term "war machine" repeatedly but never explain what the "war machine" is, I will not do the mental work for you. You need to at a minimum explain it in the beginning of your speech. I think the K debate ultimately is made or broken at the link level -- generic Ks will not really do that much for me. I want to see that you understand the K you are running, and that you can actually find specific, concrete links, into your opponents' arguments.

Second, I think alternatives should actually be viable alternatives. Tell me what the altnerative is and show me how it can work. I think that should come without saying but often I hear alternatives that don't necessarily connect with the thesis of the K or ultimately just don't make sense. If the argument does not make sense then I will very unlikely vote for it.

FRAMEWORK

Framework arguments are kind of boring these days to be honest. Try and keep it interesting by being specific. Show me how the framework interacts with the rest of your arguments. Explain to me how your framework works. Give me analysis, bring it outside of the world of generic cards and let me know how the framework works within the round we are in.

CP

Ideally CPs are non-topical and competitive. I think they are viable options but there needs to be a clear solvency story presented and particularly good impact analysis to balance the world of the plan against the world of the counter plan.

DA

DAs are great. The more specific the better. Generic DAs happen, of course, but the better the link story the better. If you can give me a good DA to the case then you have a significant chance of being able to win the round but it has to be well articulated, it has to be well warranted, it has to be well impacted out against the world of the plan.

CASE

Let's be real, the more specific case arguments you can make the better. Who doesn't like clash and actually engaging in the arguments?

ANALYSIS

Give me analysis. It's not good enough to give me impact calculus in the form of magnitude, timeframe, and significance. I need to understand how you reach the world of the impacts. I need to understand why the impacts are even a possibility. The magnitude, timeframe, and significance formula is fine and all but I need much more than that.

DEBATE FORMALITY

I strongly prefer both teams time themselves, accountability is a good skill to have, but at the request of Tab I will also be timing rounds as necessary. I don't really care where you're speaking from. I'm not particularly formal about the rounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------

* I generally view the role of the judge as being up to the debaters. If you think I should be voting on a movement, tell me why and how the ballot functions. If you think I should be the President making a decision, tell me why and how the ballot functions. I try my best to go into rounds with as few assumptions and biases as possible (recognizing that it's impossible to remove all bias as a human) and you would never see me make a claim that I am the President of a round before it starts (as an example). In short, as much as humanly possible, I try and be a tabula rasa judge so it is on the debaters to make their case for how I should view the round, how I should weigh my decision, and how my ballot should function.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

Having differences of opinion . . . it’s absolutely essential. It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out, and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth . . . is at the heart of our democracy.”[1] – President Barack Obama

Between year 2015 to 2017, I judged many debate & speech tournaments (Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Impromptu & Oritory) in Salt lake city, Utah.

Hi, I'm Adrita! McNeil '22 UT Austin '26

email: raychaudhuriadrita04@gmail.com

I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior yearsm breaking my senior year, as well as NSDA nats as a junior.

I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).

please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset

prefs -

1 - larp

2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)

3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs

4 - friv thoery/tricks (i will be sad if i have to judge tricks)

random things: time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches

speaks go down if your mean

speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh

good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want

I am a parent judge.

I have judged few rounds of LD/PF for two years. Please exchange your cards before the round begins, if you must exchange during the round please keep it under 2 minutes. State your resolved clearly before you begin if you are the first speaker. Please time yourselves.

Please do not just rush & read from your notes . I will not be able to consider it if it was not clear to me. Make it in a conversational style giving me a clear roadmap. I don't understand or consider Theory, Kritik. I judge based on how you weigh your arguments, how you address all the offensive arguments from your opponent and undermine your opponents arguments backed by evidences. I really like a strong concise conclusion in your voters.

You can talk in moderate speed. Speaker points are determined by clarity, fluency and the interactions with your peers. Also I will not disclose.

E-mail chain: ovsrijaya@gmail.com

TLDR:

Defense isn’t sticky. Tech over truth. Rebuild/collapse in summary and final to win my ballot. Please weigh.

General Tech Stuff:

Defense isn’t sticky. If something isn’t extended, I consider it dropped. I don't like paraphrasing. If you have any questions about anything before the round just ask me and I'll be happy to answer them. Include me on email chains when things get fast/techy and the round will go a lot smoother.

How to Win my Ballot:

First I look for teams to extend case and collapse on specific offense. This includes extending terminal defense and turns. Then I look for clash points among the round, give offense to whoever wins those. Next is framing to tell me whose impacts matter in the context of the offense being evaluated at the end of the round. Weighing comes in after that to tell me whose offense matters the most within the winning framework. Metaweighing is also sick because then I have even less work to do. Mirror summary in final.

Progressive Arguments:

I'll vote on anything but I'm not proficient in progressive arguments. The most experience I have is in reading soft left positions and some paraphrasing shells. Feel free to read it but walk me through it as if I'm a flay judge.

Email:

connorwynne2001@gmail.com

About Me: I currently attend Texas A&M University, and have competed in Public Forum for 3 years. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you, feel free to email me. Pronouns: she/her

LD and CX: Please treat me like a mom haha.

My Style of Judging: I'm pretty much tech over truth, I will flow however I appreciate clear signposting and a roadmap before your speech. Also if you say anything sexist, racist, ableist etc. expect an L25.

Trigger Warnings: If you are planning on running something surrounding a sensitive topic, actually message your opponents before the round or read a trigger warning at the beginning of your speech and give your opponents a chance to opt out, and actually read a different constructive if they ask you to.

Speed: I can flow speed, but if your gonna spread send the doc. If you think something is super important and round defining make sure it is said at an understandable pace. If you are spreading against a clearly less experienced team I will dock your speaks.

How I vote: I am of the belief that a debate round should look like a funnel, as the round progresses the number of arguments decrease but those that remain are deep, well-warranted, weighed and clearly extended through all speeches. I will vote on the best weighed, least mitigated impact, with the clearest and most warranted link chain. Develop a narrative starting in constructive and continuing throughout all your speeches.

I think defense in the first rebuttal is sticky (first summary does not have to extend it unless it is frontlined in the second rebuttal), and require the second rebuttal to respond to offense on their case.

I am tech over truth in most cases- however, I won't vote off something that you blippily extend and you haven't fleshed out and explained, even if the other team doesn't respond to it.

Weighing: I hate hate hate being forced to intervene and only vote off of impacts that are weighed- meaning explain to me why your impacts, as well as links, are the most strong and the most important to consider in the round. Also I don't consider dropping weighing jargon as weighing. Do not say we short circuit/outweigh on magnitude/timeframe without warranting WHY you outweigh that is NOT WEIGHING. Explain why your weighing mechanism is better than your opponents if you have competing mechanisms.

Extensions: This means in order for me to evaluate your argument, I need a clear explanation of the whole link chain leading down to the impact in summary/ff. If you just read me a card name in rebuttal/summary/final focus without reading the argument, and the warrant behind it, I won't evaluate the argument. The same concept applies to impacts, if you skip to them without explaining to me how you got there, I won't vote off of them.

Cross: I won't vote off of anything in cross unless you bring it up in a speech, but if you are overly aggressive or rude I will dock speaker points.

Summary: I LOVE a good big-picture summary, but if that's not your style I'm okay with line by line too, but please remain clear. Weigh!!!! First summary doesn't have to extend all defense, but if it is frontlined in second rebuttal, or is super important and round defining extend it, also respond to turns.

Final Focus: Voters are appreciated, I won't vote off an argument that wasn't extended in summary.

Speaks: I start at a 27.5 and based off of both strategic decisions in the round as well as clarity, sportsmanship (be nice) I will either go up or down from there. But if your opponents are being sassy, you can be sassy back as long as you aren't rude. Extra points if you make me laugh-making fun jokes/puns related to the topic like fun contention names, or quoting vines/tik toks in speeches or crossfire. Read the room, if your opponents are clearly less experienced or uncomfortable with the attitude you are presenting I will dock speaks.

Evidence: I won't call for it unless you ask me to, or if you haven't weighed and I have to intervene, or like if it's really contested or something. Also paraphrasing is okay as long as you're not misconstruing the evidence and don't extrapolate values from a piece of evidence using "debater math" it's unfair to your opponents and not educational. If you take forever to find evidence I will dock speaks.

Framework: I default util (the greatest good for the most amount of people) unless you read something different, don't read a framework in constructive unless you are going to bring it up in your later speeches as a weighing mechanism

Theory/K's/Progressive Arguments: I don't have enough familiarity with these for me to comfortably vote off of them. If the shell is super clear and extended through the whole round I will evaluate it just like any other argument, but I don't have enough technical experience to be comfortable making decisions on progressive rounds that are super close, so if you don't want a weird decision just don't run the argument. Make sure it is MERITED, meaning you aren't reading it just to trip up your opponents and waste everybody's time. I will dock speaks if you are running something progressive on a clearly less experienced team.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity, please treat it as such and not scream at each other or make me stressed out, if you have any questions, message me or ask me before round.

My email is bellamanday@gmail.com