I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

I really focus on making sure that I can understand what you are saying. Clear and intentional speaking points are something I look for. Off time road maps are always a plus, and I love well thought through voters.

I really watch for follow through on arguments. I like to see defense on your end as well as attacks on your opponents arguments.

Respect is key for me. Please make sure during the debate you treat your opponent with the respect that they deserve.

I am a lay judge. I have judged speech and debate 2 other times. In speeches I appreciate clear points and like to hear your main point repeated in your conclusion. Best of luck!!!

Pronoun: He/Him

I've been out of debate for a few years now. Speed is fine, but go normal speed on stuff you want me writing down. Generally anything that makes it easier for me to flow will help you win (good organization is helpful: being clear when making separate tags/args, when switching flows, what part of flow you are on, etc.)

Make my decision easy! I really like framing/impact calc stuff, please don't make me jump through a bunch of hoops to vote for you. Generally fine with whatever, if you have something you aren't sure about just ask! Big fan of T, I don't tend to go for T reverse voting issue type args unless it's really well done. K debate with good framing/role of ballot argumentation is also a plus!

I default to impact calc if not told something different in framing (I also assume T before impact calc). If impact calc is good with you please expand on how I should prioritize stuff (ie extinction first type args make it really easy to vote for you), otherwise you are likely to get a weird/unpredictable RFD.

I debated for four years,I have been judging for a year. I’m a Tab’s judge, that’s about it. Anything goes!

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow; recent, relevant, honest Evidence as well.

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

I am a parent judge and have no prior personal experience in debate. I have judged at numerous tournaments over the past 3 years and have judged each of the debate events.

The strength and persuasiveness of your arguments are the most important, but specifically I watch for three things: organization, performance and clash.

Organization: I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. Signposting is helpful.

Performance: Act confident, speak clearly, stand up straight and look up from your computer. Do not speak too fast. Use enunciation and inflection in your voice. If you're speaking so fast that I can't follow what you're saying your argument is wasted.

Clash: This is a debate event and I want to see debate! I watch for rebuttals of specific arguments. Signposting during rebuttal is also helpful. I also watch how well you handle yourself during crossfire. Do you ask intelligent questions, when answering questions are you able to respond knowledgeably and confidently?

Be professional. You can debate and clash and probe your opponent's arguments without being rude, offensive or immature.

Public forum is supposed to be argued as if you are in front of a non-specialist or citizen judge. That's me! If you are debating in public forum, your arguments and debate style should conform to that standard and it's important to me that you understand that.

In Congress I like to see extemporaneous arguments that keep up with the flow of the debate and respond to previous speakers. If you're looking down at your computer reading your speech that tells me that you aren't keeping up with the movement of the debate. I like to see advancement of the argument and don't want to hear the same argument repeated that has already been given by another speaker. I also look for how you respond in questioning.

In LD I care more about strong quality arguments than the value criterion. That being said, since there is a value criterion, you should make it clear how your arguments connect back to yours.

Zerin Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: No Preferences. (2 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense! Okay with theoretical, but these are the hardest to tie in directly, so if you use them, you should be really good at it!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

Please avoid K's and try to stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Stick to the resolution. Do not go off topic unless truly relevant to your argument. If you do go off, please tie it back in for me and connect the dots.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge. ****READ THIS TWICE****

The "game" of debate should be viewed as a chance to improve your ability to think critically and persuade others. As such, argumentation and delivery, both play a vital role. So, here's how I judge.

**The Win: Will be awarded based on the quality of your argumentation and evidence. I will flow the debate and am pretty good at spotting logical fallacies, so please avoid those. I will see through them.

Note: Remember that Ethos and Logos rule in argumentation. Pathos is like salt, it's important for flavoring the dish, but by itself it's, well . . . . salty.

**Speaker Points: Will be awarded on the quality of your presentation/communication.

Note: I enjoy verbal sparring and don't have a problem with an aggressive, or spicy debate style, as long as it doesn't degrade into ad-hominem attacks (focus on issues, not people). Showing respect and professionalism toward all parties, including your opponent, are critical. You will lose points if you are rude or disrespectful.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

Organization, logical, professionalism, articulate, ability to show original ideas, don't speak too fast. Be clear, concise. I need to be able to follow your thoughts.

I am new to this speech and debate world, as I never participated in high school. I am proudly a "mom" judge, and do my best to be fair and constructive in my comments and decisions. I enjoy learning and developing more as a judge during each tournament.

I have judged a few speech competitions and a congress competition. Although, I may lack experience, I am able to follow along with debates, even if you are speaking fast. I pay particular attention to evidence for your claims. I am a stickler for recent and unbiased evidence. I like to have a clear summary of your analysis of why you should win the final rebuttal. Above all, I expect respect for each other. I will drop you points if I see or hear any rudeness or disrespect to your team or the other team.

I love to judge because I learn so much from listening to your individual viewpoints. Enjoy what you're doing, be kind to others, and good luck!

I’ve done competitive speech before. I am looking at what the requirements are for why I’ve given a ranking.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Quality is better than quantity- make your ideas concise and organized, and say the most important ideas before diving into more minute things if time allows. Given that, avoid speaking quickly in order to pack in as many words as you can- good ideas impress me more than amount of ideas. Be respectful no matter your opponent’s background,experience level, or argumentation style. I’d like voters- most of all have fun and be proud of the work you do!

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 speeches if you can't make logical arguments. When a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. If I feel that your speed defies normal communication rate, I will set my pen down. This means that your arguments are not being flowed and do not exist.

I enjoy clash, but it needs to be respectful. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I will forever identify as a “communication judge”. After all, if you are not developing positive real-life skills, what is the point?

I will flow to keep track of the debate, but I am not a flow judge.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Policy does not belong in LD.

Policy: Stock issues are key.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. This form of debate was created to be a lay person debate, and I will view it as such.

Be decent humans.

Welcome! I have been judging since November 2021. I do not have a formal background in speech and debate but my son does Policy and now Public Forum. I have judged LD and various speech events at NSDA Nationals twice. I would say that my best speech and debate teachers have been you debaters! Thank you!

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality in arguments, not quantity. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits. And if we can, try not to go to Nuclear War.

I want to be persuaded! Whether you are making a case in favor of something or arguing against an issue, make it compelling. Tell me why your argument is important and why it makes sense. This is your time!

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates! Remember to have fun and good luck!

My email address for email chains will be melitafisher4732@gmail.com

I am a quality over quantity judge. I am much more impressed by a few well-made arguments than by throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. I understand that debaters have prepared their material ahead of time and are somewhat tied to the strategy that they have prepared; however, I will always value solid, well-reasoned argumentation, and good communication above some minor technicality. To me, this activity is about communicating your point of view effectively to an audience, and I am your audience. I have a fair bit of debate experience, and can usually keep up with whatever goes on, but that doesn't mean I want to. Speaking at an understandable pace, and using rhetorical techniques to drive home points will not be lost on me, and I prefer that to speed and shotgunning.

In LD I believe heavily in Value/Criterion or framework debate. Nit-picky contention argumentation is fine, but I want to see which side is true as a general rule, so dealing with your opponent's framework is very important. One reason here or there is not terribly meaningful unless they are in service of some grander principle.

For Policy, I think the first paragraph really covers most of it. I'd rather see relevant debate than kritiques, but I understand if that is all you brought. If you are going to sell me on a K, please be convincing, and commit to it. I don't like to see a K followed by, "But if you don't buy that here's a bunch of other stuff." I feel like a K should actually critique the resolution, and if you feel that way, then engaging with it immediately after feels cheap, and disingenuous.

For PF I don't have much of a particular paradigm beyond the one mentioned in the first paragraph. Forum was designed to be accessible, and while it isn't World Schools, I do think that a round of Forum should be understandable, at least mostly, to a layperson. They are short speeches and I get that there is a lot to get through, but making efforts to communicate clearly goes a long way in my book.

I judge based on the stock issues/voting issues. I appreciate well-mannered debaters who speak slow enough to be understood. Just because one speaks fast, doesn't make one better in the round. Evidence should be clear and in the appropriate context.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Esmie Hurd (she/her) and I did policy at Bozeman High School in Bozeman, Montana for 3 years. I went to NSDA nationals 3x and have been judging for about 2 years.

I'm a firm believer that the best debates are ones where your arguments are topical and could be understood by a layperson, so you're welcome to pretend I am one. You don't need to explain any policy terminology or theory to me, but you should be able to explain what you're running and why you're running it in simple terms.

Please don't spread! You simply do not need more than 2 or 3 good off-case arguments to win a policy round. If you're running 6 or 7, I'm going to assume it's because none of them are very good. I will immediately vote aff if they claim the 1NC is built as a time suck and if they are right.

I don't like Ks. If you're going to run one, it has to be extremely relevant, topical, necessary, and fairly specific to your opponent's case for me to weigh it. (I have yet to see or participate in a good K debate that meets all of these requirements).

I'm more lenient with CP's, but they have to be good.

I'm fine with new args in the 2N.

I don't mind theory at all if you have a good reason for running it!

Weigh impacts and read evidence. Look for holes, inconsistencies, and double binds you can use. Don't just go in a circle citing new evidence that supports your point and negates your opponent's. We all know you can find evidence saying whatever you want. EXPLAIN to me why their evidence sucks, yours is good, or your argument makes more logical sense. Don't get yourself in a stalemate with cards. An entire voting issue can end in a wash for me if you rely solely on an abundance of authors who happen to agree with you.

And please be kind to each other :)

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

I am a lay judge however I have fifteen years of teaching experience, especially in argumentative and persuasive writing. Additionally I was a state winner in speech and ranked first at a number of tournaments while at university. I value your communication skills.

Speech:

I am looking for clear communication. I will be assessing your ability to speak at a reasonable rate, with good volume. Do be careful with your hand gestures and body language.

Debate:

I dislike spreading or spewing -- if you choose to do this then it can have an impact on the result of the debate. If you speak too fast and I can’t follow you, none of your arguments will matter. It's better to streamline your points if that means I can follow what you’re saying. Signposting is always fabulous! Avoid debate jargon and explain things clearly.

I dislike warrantless claims and hypotheticals such as arguments of slavery, mass genocide, the holocaust, sexism, and racism. If you use an argument along these lines I will drop you.

Some of the definitions can be tricky but definition debates don’t accomplish anything or teach me about why I should vote for you.

Finally, I believe strong arguments are based in fact and not emotions. Please use good, solid evidence, stay within the substance of the debate, and convince me based on your facts why I should vote for you. Be professional, respectful, and kind. Most of all have fun!

I debated PF and Policy, but it's been a while and I'm not familiar with the topics. I follow speed well and am chill with any argument as long as it is well thought through and conveyed well.

I did PF for 3 years and LD for one, and for these types of debate I prefer a more traditional and comms based approach, though Counter Plans for LD are allowed as well as Generalized Alternatives in PF. For policy, I know most of the lingo and am ok with medium high speed, though road-mapping and explaining jargon is an absolute must!

I vote off of what's on the flow, so be very clear about where an argument is being made and what other arguments in the round they apply to. (ie: For my next attack, group my opponent's first and second contentions...)

For decision making, I'll weigh whatever you tell me is most important in the round and use the resolution (along with any RA's or Value/Criterions) to judge the arguments and make a decision. Therefore, be EXTREMELY CLEAR on what's most important to your team.

I'm only ok with tag-teaming in Policy, but keep it to a minimum.

If the round is too close to call flow-wise, I will go first to comms and second to courtesy and ethics. Do your best and debate your style!

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

I've been judging for more than 15 years now. I've been a coach for more than 7 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

Congress: I very much hate redundant, rehashed, speeches. You don't all need to speak on the same bill. It hurts you when you do that because the later speeches don't have new points and don't progress the debate. Direct, by name, refutation is absolutely going to help you. Using evidence AND citing your evidence is absolutely going to benefit you. You don't need to wave your arm like you're trying to conduct an orchestra. Movement can either add or detract from your speech. Move with a purpose and make sure that it adds to your speech otherwise it's a waste. If you use an intro, which is recommended, make sure you tie it into your conclusion because it ties everything into a nice little bow. I, also, use the NSDA guidelines for scoring speeches and PO time.

P.O. Be ruthlessly efficient. Cut out all of the unnecessary wording. You don't need to thank them for a speech. If we just had a speech in affirmation we don't need to tell everyone that. You can just say "negation" and tap and expect people to rise to be recognized. That saves a lot of time. Same thing for questioning. Cut out all the unnecessary words. It slows the round down and makes it so you don't get the maximum number of speeches. Shut down dilatory motions. Only recognize one motion at a time. Keep the chamber in order. Don't recognize motions that aren't a part of Parli Pro.

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

LD paradigm: I am generally a flow judge; however, I use the value/criterion debate as a weighting mechanism for my flow. that means I want to see clash on the value and criterion, convince me why your value and criterion are better for the round than your opponent. I know it isn't always possible, so if you find yourself against an opponent running the same value or criterion turning is fine. When it comes to progressive LD I am not super familiar with it so you'll have to walk me through a lot of it if you want to run a progressive case. speed isn't going to blow me away so keep your speed to at most, above average. make sure that your opponent can keep up and there won't be any problems. Finally in your rebuttals I want to see you linking back to cards, and your case if you don't then I will drop your arguments from my flow.

PF paradigm: I am not super familiar with PF so try to keep it traditional for the time being. I will primarily be a communications judge, but I will also be flowing for the sake of keeping up with your arguments. This means I want clear arguments, with sign posting when you are attacking and defending. Watch your speed. I prefer quality to quantity, but if your opponents can keep up there won't be any problems. One last thing is I want to see framework clash if there is any, I will use the framework when looking back on my flow.

CX: I have very little experience in policy debate, in fact it's hard to follow sometimes. that being said I am a communications judge, that means no spreading, no excessive speed, and being clear when you are attacking. you'll have to explain your attacks thoroughly, and ultimately whoever is best at convincing me they are right will win.

I have been judging for the last eight years. One of my important rules are if you are the AFF. it is your burden to prove your case. The neg only need to break down your case by two points. They will the case. I don't mind speed but the easier it is to understand you the better it is for you. I love when you battle each other but in a clean and respectful way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your round, take the experience to learn to critique your case and grow. Good luck!

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

Just make sure to follow the rules according to your debate topic and we will be good.

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

Kasey (she/her/hers) -- Assistant Director of Speech & Debate for the Nampa School District.

background: four years of Idaho high school LD 2016-2020. four years of NPDA at Whitman 2020-2024, finished senior season 2nd at the NPTE and 3rd at NPDA. 6ish seasons of speech, platforms and impromptu in high school and a couple years of limited prep in college.

tl;dr: I am not here to micromanage your debates but to adjudicate them. that being said, access is an a priori issue. if you go out of your way to make debate inaccessible or uneducational, you will have a very difficult time picking up my ballot. if there is something specific you would like feedback on, please tell me.

high school debates

I will flow the whole round and will probably vote there. I would much rather evaluate a debate by the mechanics than if you check the boxes as a "conventionally good speaker" (many of our norms of what makes a good speaker are tied up in systemic bias). Warrant, don't forget impact calc, use your framework. We build arguments in a particular way for a reason.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are because I vote on the flow and want to put arguments in the right place. I do not feel the need for excessive on-time thank-yous and would rather we spend speech time actually debating.

I don't really have preferences on arguments. Do what you want unless it's advocate for genocide.

NPDA/NPTE

do what you want but know that you will have a hard time picking up running MLM in front of me. I love minutiae as evidenced by Jas and I's tendency to collapse to ptix or spec. I am very willing to entertain an over/underlimiting debate and the weirdest process scenarios you can explain well. Ks are cool and I love listening to them but you need to be able to explain how it works in like the simplest of terms and clearly delineate between pre- and post-fiat impacts.

leaning more tech over truth these days and will vote on the flow unless given a reason not to (see note on access above).

your speaks will probably be higher if you give me an interesting impact scenario that isn't we all die in a nuclear winter.

Kasey (she/her/hers) -- Assistant Director of Speech & Debate for the Nampa School District.

background: four years of Idaho high school LD 2016-2020. four years of NPDA at Whitman 2020-2024, finished senior season 2nd at the NPTE and 3rd at NPDA. 6ish seasons of speech, platforms and impromptu in high school and a couple years of limited prep in college.

tl;dr: I am not here to micromanage your debates but to adjudicate them. that being said, access is an a priori issue. if you go out of your way to make debate inaccessible or uneducational, you will have a very difficult time picking up my ballot. if there is something specific you would like feedback on, please tell me.

high school debates

I will flow the whole round and will probably vote there. I would much rather evaluate a debate by the mechanics than if you check the boxes as a "conventionally good speaker" (many of our norms of what makes a good speaker are tied up in systemic bias). Warrant, don't forget impact calc, use your framework. We build arguments in a particular way for a reason.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are because I vote on the flow and want to put arguments in the right place. I do not feel the need for excessive on-time thank-yous and would rather we spend speech time actually debating.

I don't really have preferences on arguments. Do what you want unless it's advocate for genocide.

NPDA/NPTE

do what you want but know that you will have a hard time picking up running MLM in front of me. I love minutiae as evidenced by Jas and I's tendency to collapse to ptix or spec. I am very willing to entertain an over/underlimiting debate and the weirdest process scenarios you can explain well. Ks are cool and I love listening to them but you need to be able to explain how it works in like the simplest of terms and clearly delineate between pre- and post-fiat impacts.

leaning more tech over truth these days and will vote on the flow unless given a reason not to (see note on access above).

your speaks will probably be higher if you give me an interesting impact scenario that isn't we all die in a nuclear winter.

hey y’all :) (capitalized letters bother me, idk why) my pronouns are she/her, if you have preferred pronouns, please let me know<3

I did debate throughout high school for all 4 years, PF and LD. I’m much more of a flow judge than i am a communications judge. if you lose on my flow, you will lose the round. that being said though, i am fine with speed as long as i can keep up with you on the flow. i love progressive LD but im not going to sit their & read your case and trying to flow it as you spew gibberish. it makes debate lose educational value for everyone :(

Big things to keep in mind:

- if i call for a piece of ev and it is cherry picked or power tagged, i will drop it from the round entirely. it’s bad for education and bad for debate.

- please sign post so i know where to flow what you are saying.

- i weigh dropped args and turned args very heavily

- impact calc is extremely important to earn my ballot

- i don’t time evidence transfers & i encourage you to time yourself and your opponents as my adhd brain sucks at keeping time but i’ll try my best

- LD- Ks, plans and cps are good with me! if it is not your cx to ask the qs, don’t ask them- opponent please cut them off. do not forget about the framing of the debate whether you’re using a val/cri or not. PF- varsity, i hate tag teaming. Novice, i discourage it, but will allow it.

- please give me TW before the round begins about suicide, self-harm, sexual assault or anything related to sort. depending on the depth, i may not be able to fairly judge the round.

Generally, theory or T is fine, just make sure you tell me so i can flow it as such.

Policy-

-All args are good in my book. I think topicality is really annoying unless ur opponent is being super abusive

-i vote off the flow here too

-spreading is fine- just send me your case/ speech doc before hand

-please do impact calc for me & signpost - especially with new ev/ arg

-you can kick out of whatever u want

-ins & outs are fine . just make u you tell me please .

If you ever have any questions about my ballots or see me after round and have any questions, please just come up to me :) i’m more than willing to talk with you. other than that, just have fun & be respectful of one another.

I did policy in high school. I'm not super big on theory, but if you can run it well go for it. I prefer off-the-clock roadmaps. speed is good so long as I can understand what you're saying. I'm fine with any type of argument as long as you can debate it well. during rebuttles please do voters.

I'm a former policy debater. That said, for policy, stock issues. Not a big fan of topicality arguments, but raise them before the rebuttal. Spreading should stay on the farm.

LD--its a values debate. Tie your contentions to your value. Tell me why your value outweighs your opponent's.

PF--I want impacts. This debate is short. Impacts are critical.

Overall--I pay attention to evidence, so it helps if you CLEARLY give me the citation up front. I guess I'm a comms judge, because if I cannot understand, or you speak too fast, it isn't counting in your favor.

Be able to summarize, in layman's terms, what your evidence means. It's obvious on a cross ex when you can't.

Public Forum:

It is important for both sides to clearly outline the burdens of the Pro and Con sides in the round. Whichever team can outline their responsibilities (e.g. "it is the burden of the pro side to demonstrate that, on balance, renewable energy in the U.S. is superior to fossil fuels") and best uphold themvia their contentions will have the advantage. Both teams can and should eventually agree on appropriate definitions and burdens. This is not Policy; vocabulary and delivery should be accessible. This is not Lincoln-Douglas; clash should be over contentions and not "framework." Effective cross examination scores huge points.

Lincoln Douglas:

Most weight is given to Value and Criterion analysis using your contentions. Whichever side uses their Criterion to analyze and explain the superiority of their Value as it pertains to the resolution will have the advantage. Vocabulary ought to be academic and professional while avoiding jargon-fatigue. Delivery should be easy to follow and flow. Cross examination is a great chance to earn speaker points.

Policy:

Extremely low tolerance for speed of any kind. Absolute zero tolerance for critiques. I don't want to personally see your or your opponent's cards or case if I don't have to. I want you to use your rhetorical skills to deliver your case to me instead. Vocabulary ought to be suitably technical for the resolution without crossing into legal-speak territory. If the proposal/plan is highly technical, delivery and vocabulary need to make it understandable and coherent.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. No speed! My decision are primarily derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious that you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. No speed, I think it is inherently bad for debate.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimal if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

I appreciate all the hard work you do! Go speech and debate.

Email: aas363@cornell.edu

do whatever you want

SAFETY NOTE:

Safety comes first. If the round becomes unsafe for you or your partner and you are not comfortable voicing your concerns in the round, please email or FB message me immediately. I want all debaters to know that I am an adult you can trust in this space. I will do as much as I can to protect you and keep this activity safe for you.

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

General Debate:

I am an experienced debater who specialized in LD, but I have judged long enough that I can follow other events just fine. There are 3 main things I look at in a debate round.

The first of these is accessibility. Just because you have a well written case and can speed read it does not mean you are a good debater. The mark of a good debater is smooth communications, which means speaking clearly, and often not using speed. I can usually follow speed plenty well, but if it is used like a weapon by preventing your opponent from catching all of your case, you will be penalized for it. If both opponents agree that speed is fine beforehand, then go for it. Also, if you have any accessibility needs (eg. difficulty hearing, etc), feel free to let me know before the round so we can make the round as accessible as possible. Another important aspect of accessibility is abuse. If your arguments are abusive, you will be penalized, regardless of whether your opponent points it out. Run strong arguments, not abusive ones. Still feel free to point out abusive arguments if your opponent makes any, though, to make sure I catch them.

The second thing I look for is clash. Regardless of how well either side debates, if there is no clash, it's difficult to determine which debater won the arguments. Attack each other's cases, and try to avoid dropping points unless it is strategic to do so (don't do this unless you know how to strategically drop points though). Although I'm looking for clash, I'm also looking for civility. Don't be rude to your opponent, it's unnecessary and unprofessional.

Thirdly, I vote off of framework and flow. Provide a solid framework, and tie your arguments to that framework throughout the entirety of the debate. Your framework exists for the purpose of telling me how to vote. If you don't carry your framework throughout the round, you aren't really supporting the issues you initially told me I should vote on. Additionally, follow the flow in your speeches. This ensures I know what you are attacking or rebuilding when you speak, and better organization usually equals a better speech. Provide voters and remind me why you deserve to win.

LD Specific:

Personally, I prefer more of a traditional style LD round. I'm a huge sucker for value and criterion, so don't neglect them as they are fundamental to the debate style. Don't run a value for your criterion, or a criterion for your value. As I mentioned above in the framework section, tie your framework (In LD this is your value and criterion) to the rest of your case to support why you should win the round. A well-thought out and developed value and criterion do wonders for improving your case. If you prefer a more progressive style, I can follow along if you must. Additionally, LD already allows for the use of philosophy, so most Kritiks do not need to be called a Kritik in LD. If you want to run philosophy, you can just do that without calling it a K. If it is something external to the round that you are critiquing, then a K may be appropriate if you really desire so.

Congressional Debate: I've dealt in congress for the majority of my career; I know what I'm doing and looking for in competitors, as well as the rules of the round and common practice (Robert's Rules, etc).

The three main things I focus on are clarity, presentation, and clash.

You must present yourself professionally and succinctly, while also building a comprehensive case. This doesn't mean you have to dumb things down (I actually really love high-vocab and intellectual comprehension/interpretation of rules/congressional legal lingo), just don't try to elaborate unnecessarily on previously made points or talk a point to death once it has been introduced into the debate. It is also great to acknowledge previously made speeches, especially if you are citing work from a fellow house/senate member. I have a very high regard for civility, particularly in questioning period. Don't be rude, in short.

I know whether or not you actually know what you're talking about, as well, so unless you're capable of making a good on-the-spot extemporaneous speech or point, don't bother. Along with that point, you should be getting through as many questions in QP as possible: this is another dead giveaway as to whether or not you really know your stuff and gives you the opportunity to elaborate more upon previously made statements and really get your idea and presence out there. I may be biased, but I find Congress to be one of if not the most powerful and graceful forms of debate, and when done well, it is nothing shy of dazzling; live to your fullest potential in this regard! Personal style and the development of such is one of congressional debate's strong suits.

Finally, there should be solid clash and new points being presented AT LEAST every three speeches (both aff and neg). Unless there is actual debate going on on the same point for several consecutive speeches, don't drag out an argument for longer than it needs to be- no it doesn't make you look smart or edgy.

LD: Extensive background in this as well. Once again, I can see right through you.

Main focuses are clarity, clash, strong and assertive cross ex, and related value/criterion pairings- make sure to really reinforce and affirm exactly why it is that they go together, and continually reference and tie them into your speeches throughout the round

Off-time roadmaps are also much appreciated!

POFO: This should NOT look like an LD round, and should operate much more like policy. Do NOT tell me anything about a value or morality set. Automatic red flag.

I love to see effective tag-teaming that shows whether or not your team is in-sync and mentally present during debate. There is a difference between carrying them and working WITH them. Make sure all your questions reflect such as well. Always go over VOTERS!!

Policy: Essentially the same things as POFO. I want clarity, efficacy, and voters. Do not set up your speech/give your speech during a QP.

It is my sincere honour and pleasure to work with you all. Good luck!! :))

I did policy for all 4 years of high school although I have debated once or twice in every debate type.

I am a tabs judge although I will not buy that racism is good. You can read whatever you want and I will vote on it as long as it is explained. I like impact calc as a way to boil down the round, along with voters. I am fine with tag teaming and flex prep. I am ok with speed, but I will say clear if I can't hear you or understand you. If you are going to run shells and arguments like theory, T and framework please include all parts, I will still vote on it but it will decrease its value when voting. Please be respectful of all pronouns within the round and respect your opponents.

I was a public form debater throughout all of high school and I also have experience with Lincoln Douglas. I am an all-state, nationally ranked debater with outstanding distinction, as well as a volunteer coach for high school debate. That said, I will vote based on flow, not presentation. I am looking for high quality arguments that are convincing, well-supported with robust evidence, and followed by well-articulated warrants. Public forum is an evidence based debate, so all of your arguments should be supported with evidence. I will also consider impact, so I want not just clearly articulated arguments, but I want to know why each of them is important (particularly why they are more important, or more developed than, your opponents' argumentation). I also expect that you will weigh arguments—your job as a debater is to explain why you believe the ballot should be in favor of your team (of course). To do this, you need to prove that your argumentation was better, that your evidence was more convincing, that you covered more of the flow, etc. This should be the focus of your final speeches.

I don't care about speed and I don't have any other preferences or pet peeves. Otherwise, let me know if you have any other questions before the round!

Experience:

2015-2019:Policy Debater at Rock Springs HS; 3x NSDA Qualifier/Attendee (PF, Policy, and OO); 2017 NIETOC Qualifier/Attendee; 2017 TOC Qualifier/Attendee

Please add me to the email chain: rskorcz@uwyo.edu

1. General thoughts: This is your opportunity to be heard and I am happy to listen to any argument you make, as long as they are respectful. Time yourself, make sure I know who you are, road maps are off time, flashing is off time, no tag team CX (know your argument) and ask if you have questions regarding my paradigm.

2. Flowing/Spreading: First, flow the round. I'll be able to tell if you don't actually flow. In order for my flow to be the best, please ensure that there is a clear distinguishing between Tag/Author and the internals. Having voice inflection ensures that I am able to clearly flow the debate as you are presenting it. Lastly, I am down with spreading and speed as the above is utilized as an approach to spreading. If you aren't being clear, I will indicate to you by using the hand raise function.

3. Public Forum: First, clash!!! If you spend the entire round just reiterating what your first speech said, not only will it be boring, but it's not good debate. I want to know how your arguments interact with your opponents'. Second, I want clear voters! Tell me what the debate boils down to, what you think you are winning, etc. Lastly, I'm not super familiar with the high school topics this season, so if there's any lingo or background information, make sure to clarify or mention that as you use them.

4. Lincoln-Douglas: My domain in HS was policy, so I'm fine with progressive and fast debate. Roadmaps, clash, and clear voters are all good things to have in your debate. Lastly, I'm not super familiar with the high school topics this season, so if there's any lingo or background information, make sure to clarify or mention that as you use them.

If you have any questions, please ask!

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

He/Him

Tech over truth

Speed is fine just put me in the email chain matthewspall@gmail.com

Things I love are clash and impacts, and I love good strategy(that means please condense).

I also love the theory debate so don't be afraid to get into that or go for it in the 2nc.

With condo I can vote for anything but if you're running a ton of positions I will probably err aff, whereas if it's only a couple I will probably err neg. On condo i much prefer interps that are you can only run 1 conditional argument, rather than conditional arguments are bad.

You will lose if you clip cards

You will lose if you say anything racist, sexist, etc.

K's are fine but definitely explain them. If it took you a while to understand the K, it will probably take me a while as well and I would love to learn about whatever argument you run. If you run a K I would love to see a ton of clash with the aff case and it must show why the aff is bad.

Tell me how to vote and impact out your arguments

CPs must be mutually exclusive and have net benefit

Signpost as always

T needs to be interp violation standards and voters. Too many times I see teams not extend all of these and if you don't I will not vote on it.

Aff must prove it is better than the squo, neg must prove squo or their advocacy is better than the aff.

I'm okay with being sassy just don't be mean or rude, we should all try to be pals in debate.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

Introduction

I am 100% a tabs progressive judge. I debated for three years in high school on the Boise and Nat circuits, starting in PF, then LD, and finally Policy, graduating in 2018. I have experience from very lay debate all the way up to complex K's, so I am comfortable with everything. I am graduating from ISU in 2022 with a degree in Physics and Math, but I have also taken many classes in philosophy and ethics so I follow analytic and philosophical cases equally well. I am a tabs judge, so run whatever you are most comfortable with, but if you have been looking for an opportunity to use one of your new K's, go ahead and do so. My paradigm is laid out in the following manner: style preference (LD then CX), voting issues, then my familiarity with different philosophies/arguments.

Style Preference (Overall)

Evidence: You've got to have evidence to back up nearly everything you say. If you are simply deriving some sort of contradiction, it is completely alright to not present cards, but if you're introducing philosophy or statistics that aren't obvious to everyone in the room (e.g. you don't have to read the definition of deontology, everyone understands that one), you're going to need evidence or it won't appear on the flow.

Spreading: I am fine with speed and actually I prefer a faster round. In some extreme speed situations, and if it is fine with the tournament directors, then you can flash the cards to me as well. Otherwise, I will just say "clearer" if you are going too fast.

Tech and Truth: I hold tech slightly over I do truth in progressive rounds. For the most part, if you do a better job on the flow than your opponent, even if they make slightly better arguments, I will vote for you. However, if you are making awful 10 second arguments that your opponent has to spend 30 seconds debunking with actual evidence, it will work against you.

Final speeches: I know a lot of debaters who spend their entire final speech making a call to action, and giving a vision of the world of the aff versus the world of the neg. I don't particularly find this useful to the round, it is almost always a waste of a speech. Spend your final speech summing up the arguments themselves, the framework, and why I, as the judge, when I am going through the flow at the end of the round, should vote for your side. If you won on the disad, talk about why you won it, how the link-turn falls, etc. Painting a pleasant image of nuclear war will not help.

Style Preference (LD)

LD is all about ethics: determining what is morally right or morally wrong. I've taken multiple courses in college on ethical theory, so I prioritize framework over all else. That said, you DO NOT need to have a value and a value criterion, I am perfectly comfortable with you reading framework like, "The framework is to reduce structural violence" and then immediately start going into your contentions. Your case does, however, have to make coherent sense under the framework, since the entire resolution is predicated on the ethical dilemma.

Furthermore, I am quite comfortable with frameworks that explicitly state that there is no such thing as morality (e.g. Nietzsche, Blackburn, etc.). I think that these are the most under-utilized arguments in LD, and in my opinion, they are incredibly strong.

Style Preference (CX) Neg arguments

Topicality: Topicality is my least favorite neg argument (unless you are a novice of course). I will still vote on topicality, however if an aff is truly non-topical then I believe you have a better shot of reading theory than you do topicality. Read T if you feel like you have no other option, but don't just throw it in there to waste the Aff's time and then kick it later.

Theory: I am substantially more receptive to theory than I am to topicality. If they read 8 off, please run theory on them. Furthermore, I am susceptible to drop the debater theory, so if what they are running is particularly abusive, then I would be tempted to drop them if that is the solvency to your theory. I'm comfortable with most theory, just make sure to slow down for the violation.

Out of round K's: These are the simplest Kritiks, the ones that everybody knows (cap, biopower, hege, setcol, etc). I love these K's, and think they are perfectly justified in a debate round. Make sure that your alts are reasonable though, I usually won't buy a "drop the debater" alt for an out of round K. By all means, please run them.

In round K's: These are more complex Kritiks, they deal with the discourse generated inside the debate space itself. Critiquing the debate space, or the manner in which the debaters use this space, is also completely valid to me. If the opponents say something misogynistic, by all means, please run a Fem K. These should be built on in round solvency, and this is where a "drop the debater" alt is actually useful, and I might consider voting on. I've run many of these back in my debating days, and think they are very strong, but difficult to use effectively. By all means, please run them.

Disads: DA's are fine. Be creative and don't run something that is oversaturated, though.

Aff Arguments

K Affs: I love reading, writing, and hearing K affs. That said though, since I have heard so many K affs, I know very well when the aff is strong versus when it is just a bunch of large words designed to confuse the opponent and the judge into voting for you. If you're going to run a K aff, run it because it is a good argument, not because you want a flashy trick to try and confuse everyone in the round. Large, complex arguments are great, just make sure that they have some backing in actual philosophy.

Policymaker Affs: These are pretty straightforward from everything you learned in your first semester as a policy debater. Inherency is essential, make sure that your link chain is solid, and that your impacts are at least slightly believable.

Voting Issues

When I judge, I go directly down this line in order to make my decision:

1. Drop the debater arguments: If any drop the debater arguments or turns were issued, I will first go through these and determine if I buy them. I have a relatively high threshold for these.

2. Framework: I will choose the framework with the better arguments attached to it. If your framework is more convincing, I will then judge both cases under this framework. Remember, your opponent can still win even if your framework is stronger, if their case fits better than yours under the framework. In policy rounds where framework isn't issued or carried through on the flow, skip this step.

3. Dropped/Lost arguments: I will then decide which arguments were won, lost, or washed. This is where I decide if there was a successful link turn, if the link chain was broken, or a logical fallacy. I WILL NOT vote based on anything that wasn't explicitly stated in the constructives or rebuttals.

4. Impact Calculus: I determine the weight of the impacts UNDER THE CHOSEN FRAMEWORK. If the eventual framework was minimizing structural violence, then arguments that don't minimize structural violence will be struck off the flow here. If there is a clear winner by this point (which there usually is), then I will make my decision and sign the ballot.

5. Tech: I would say that 99.9% of the time, it should never get to this step. In the case that it somehow does, I will decide who wins by technical proficiency in debate, and who I believe to have the skills of the more competent debater.

Argument Familiarity

Since this paradigm is already monstrously long, I'll list the philosophies/Kritiks that I am most familiar with, so that you can have an idea of your argument's obscurity. These are mostly listed in order of how well I understand the arguments, but is by no means an exhaustive list.

Queer theory (positivity and negativity), Moral non-realism (non-cognitivism, quasi-realism, relativism, etc.), Disaster Porn, Nietzsche, Reproductive Futurism, Feminism, Anti-Capitalism, Biopower (Agamben and Foucault), More Baudrillard, Community Advocacy, Anthropocentrism, Trigger warning, Epistemology, Orthography, Diaspora, Surveillance, Afropessimism.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please reach out to me through email: spierob2@isu.edu

I was the 2021 State champ in oratory, 2021 national qualifier in PF and OO, and my primary events included 4 years of Oratory and 3 in PF.

My experience is almost exclusively in PF, but I am comfortable following you in quick-paced arguments regardless of your event. Speed is perfectly fine with me.

I value warranting very heavily; make sure I know why you're bringing something up.Quality over quantity here - I don't want to hear 7 arguments that mean nothing to what's happened in round so far. I don't think this is a good use of your time. It's much more disorganized that clearly telling me the story of the strong arguments you've already developed. Tell me what to think, don't expect me to infer what you're trying to get across. Interact with the other side's arguments. Don't give me (just) umbrella answers, direct responses are vital in my vote.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me. Time yourselves please. Sign post! And please be respectful to everyone in the round.

If it isn't on my flow, I'm not voting on it. Your time is a really powerful tool! Know how to use it wisely in round.

If you want any more clarity on how I vote, please ask!

I'm a coms judge mainly, so I appreciate a steady talking pace because I'm not conditioned yet to listen and process all of what the speaker says at faster paces. Other than that, I expect good volume, eye contact, body language, etc. When it comes to the arguments I dislike, I am not a fan of end of the world scenario arguments/extreme escalation arguments. I understand that some things could lead to that given the situation in the world today, so if those arguments are reasonably made, I expect a good link to that extreme escalation happening.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change.

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument.

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically.

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit.

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why).

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate.

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them.

Condo:

I'll vote either for or against condo on how good your strategy/argumentation is for either side. My threshold for voting you down for condo increases if you are using it to flood the flow and they kick everything early on in the debate. But again that depends on how well your opponents prove condo bad.

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

Theory I love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

That said, I am NOT good for frivolous theory. If your theory argument is frivolous or otherwise problematic, then your opponent can just say "Judge, this theory shell argument is ridiculous, drop the debater" and I'll do exactly that. Be mindful of the arguments you make

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans and PICs, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down. I NEED pen time

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked.

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

Hi!

Email Chain: xumandi5678@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Highland ’20, Columbia ’24

- Summary -- > ex-debater, tech over truth as long as you’re clear; warrant & weigh

General:

· I did debate all through high school in Idaho. Policy for the first two years, PF for the last two with a bit of LD mixed in. Worlds at Nats’19. PF at Nats’20.

· I do flow, please signpost clearly though

· Tech over truth but just make sure you’re giving me warrants

· Speed is okay but please be clear

· Time yourselves but I’ll time as well. I don’t time evidence transfer, just don’t take too long

· I won’t call for evidence unless it’s contested by your opponent with a reason given. Make sure it’s a cut card too

· Please don’t be rude, unnecessarily aggressive, or just plain mean. If you’re sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. I will drop you.

Debate Specifics:

· Make sure to collapse, depth is better than breadth

· Weigh, tell me why you’ve won, not just where

· If you’re extending offense don’t just tell me to extend it through the flow, warrant it

· Clash is good, impacts are great, voters too

· I’m not very familiar with prog stuff but I do find them fascinating. It’s been a long time since I’ve done policy so if you choose to run a K or something, do so at your own risk, and don’t assume I have any clue what you're talking about

Feel free to email me if you have questions before the round and feel free to ask me in the round as well. As always, good luck and have fun! :)

TL:DR: Flow Judge, Speed is cool, I like specific links on Disadvantages and Kritiks. On Aff, I favor innovative cases. K affs are welcome as well. Just make sure that you communicate your points effectively.

What I look for overall: Effective logical analysis and communication is the framework for which all forensic competition is judged. Make your taglines clear and concise, and make clear logical connections between points. The If-this-then-this chain needs to be crystal clear on the flow, and signpost the arguments you're addressing during rebuttals.

Speed: All good, just makes sure I can understand your taglines. Please speed through your cards though.

Affirmative: I don't have many preferences insofar as the aff case is concerned. Kritikal Affirmatives are welcome as long as you understand the aff and can communicate it effectively.

In the absence of another framework, I will default to a stock-issues, policymaker framework; weighing the value of the aff according to its practical application, feasibility and effectiveness. However, if you propose an alternative framework, I will judge accordingly.

Negative: On-case arguments and Off-case positions with specific links are most favorable. Make your advocacy clear. I am weighing the aff against the negative alternative: The SQ, The K alt or the CP, so clearly state your advocacy and prove to me that the neg world looks substantially more favorable than the aff world.

The Negative Strategy: Target the solvency and/or harms with specific case arguments. Run 2 or 3 good disadvantages and stand behind your advocacy. A good Counterplan or Kritik will have equal swaying power with me to the SQ.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

young.broox@gmail.com - shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns, or if you want specific feedback post-tourney.

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in English and philosophy. I Have been a Finals Panelist Judge in Congress at the annual Nationals Tournament and have judged Congressional Debate and other events for 5+ years.

My most important rule is to keep decorum and be respectful.

In terms of my general debate paradigm;

Go ahead and read whatever case you want—even theory if you think you can.

I like to think that I'm generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot(I am.)

Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches, I will evaluate the arguments you tell me to. Unless that is, what you're telling me to evaluate is stupid, which I will probably tell you on your ballot(respectfully we hope.) If you don't tell me how to evaluate your—and/or your interlocutors'—arguments, I will not know how you want me to weigh them.

I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Or if you tell me to call a card.

Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow at any speed at this point, but spreading will reflect poorly on your speaks.

pleaSE signpost. I neither need nor want your off-time roadmap if you signpost effectively.

Probably most importantly; Good luck, have fun.