General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, and Policy since I graduated.

Paradigm: Tabs, unless there's no F/W in which case I default to Util. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. Tech/Truth.

Timing: I will be timing prep, cross and rounds, but I expect you to time yourself. I will let you know when you are going over.

Pacing: I am very comfortable with speed but speaking fast should not make you incomprehensible. Both myself and your opponent should be able to hear tags, warrants, and analytical arguments.

General:

- Make sure to stay organized — clear roadmaps and signposting is really helpful with making a clear and concise argument.

PF

Extensions: Please extend arguments, not just authors. Anything not extended in summary won't factor into my decision at end of round except defense extended from first rebuttal to first final focus

Rebuttal: Turns that aren't answered in second rebuttal are de facto dropped. Second rebuttal doesn't need to answer weighting that's in the first rebuttal, it can wait until second summary.

Weighing: Weighing is good, it is the first thing I will vote on. Scope means nothing without magnitude.

Cross: Statements made in cross are not inherently binding.

Policy/LD:

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I will vote for anything well-run. You need a clear ROB so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Come into the round prepared for T and arguments that the K is not compelling within the debate framework.

CPs: I have no problem with a CP, but they require a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan and there should be a good defense on a permutation if one is argued by the affirmative.

T: Topicality can be a voter, but it requires standards and voters as well as a clear violation of in round abuse.

Ks: Kritiks are good when they have a proper link chain, impact and alt. Make sure that if you choose to run a Kritik, you understand what the alt is and can explain how the alt solves.

Theory: I am comfortable with high level theory debates. If you choose to make theory arguments, make sure you focus on arguing how your interpretation is better than your opponent and argue comparative offense calculus.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my ballot, or want to include me in email chains (please do), my email is willclark813@outlook.com

I’m a very simple judge, not many presences or bias towards different types of arguments. I am good with understanding theory or T. My decisions are made simply based on what arguments are won on the flow. Technicalities are a big thing for me, if you make drops or fail to properly extend arguments I will not consider them. I have over 5 years of judging experience in Policy, LD. PF.

I debated policy in Texas in the late 1990s, and then I debated at Northwestern. I have a PhD in rhetoric and argumentation, and I teach at UWM in the Communication Department. I have been judging debate in WI since 2018, and I started coaching in 2020.

I can flow at most speeds as long as you are clear, but I appreciate it when debaters slow down and explain and weigh arguments. I'm open to all well made arguments. Please remember that a tag/claim is not a full argument. I appreciate clash and strong argument development. I follow the debaters' lead for reasons for voting, but saying that "I outweigh" (for example) is not an argument-- you need to explain why you outweigh and why that matters. For PF especially, please remember that the affirmative has the burden of proof.

Update for 9/21: Please slow down for virtual debate.

updates 1/21:

I don't think that true objectivity is possible, so I won't claim to be tabula rasa. However, I do my best to remain open to arguments and set aside my biases. I am not open to hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments. I am also a professional rhetorician, so you will have a challenging time persuading me that discourse doesn’t matter (although the relationships between the material and discursive is up for debate). I’m fine with kritiks, plans, counterplans, framework debates, util impacts debates. I don’t see the logic in how the neg can run a counterplan unless the aff has run a plan, but I’ll listen to the arguments justifying. I’m not strong in classical philosophy, so slow down and explain those arguments. I teach and publish engaging critical theory, so I am stronger in those arguments. If it’s helpful to see my list of publications and classes that I’ve taught, my faculty webpage is somewhat up to date (but I’m really doubt that would be helpful).

I judge based on my flow, and I tend to have a good flow. If you tell me that an argument is a reason for voting, I mark that on my flow and spend time thinking about that in my decision. If you don’t give me a reason for voting, I’ll do my best to sort through the arguments and make a decision. I adore when debaters number their arguments and keep their arguments organized. I will always priorities flowing the tag and key arguments in the card before the author’s name. So if you are extending evidence, it’s a good rule of thumb to give the author’s name and a shortened tag (instead of saying “extend Jones ’20,” say “extend Jones ’20, the impact is global warming,” or if you have been numbering, “extend number 3, Jones ’20).

Speed: I'm fine with speed, and for most debaters, I have had no problem flowing. I’ve been getting some audio glitches in virtual debate. As long as we are virtual, please keep those tags super clear. I've also noticed that as I get tired, I start missing some arguments when debaters are going fast in rebuttals. I'll do my best to keep up, and I don't penalize debaters for going fast. If you want to make sure I don't miss something important, emphasize it clearly.

Bottom line: tell me why you win and how I should make my decision. Please don't let me try to figure out how to weigh competing arguments because that's when debaters start finding me to be unpredictable. Make your case for how I should weigh those arguments.

I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.

Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

01rafe0li@gmail.com [zeros not o's]

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

-Roadmaps seem pointless, if you are efficient, organized, and signpost well you shouldn't need to

I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

**SPEAKS**

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.4 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-27.9 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.4 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-28.9 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.4 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

* General Strat

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

• Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

* Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

* General Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

* CP

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

* DA

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

she/her

eyliterski22@gmail.com

i did policy debate for 4 years in high school; wisconsin and some nat circuit

1. i will not vote for any ontologically violent args (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, ableism good, etc.); make these args or be any ist/phobic and you get an L and 0 speaks

2. tech>truth (but u still need to explain why what they dropped matters)

3. spreading is fine (slow down on tags, analytics, theory) being unclear is not - i will say clear x2, after that i’ll attempt to keep flowing but it will prob be bad

4. i’m a tabs judge so run what you want - don’t try to judge adapt too much

5. feel free to ask questions

6. have fun and be nice ! debate is cool so enjoy it

**i have not judged this year's topic

READ IF U WANT:

the following are thoughts i have ab dif args and background info; could help u to understand how i evaluate rounds or improve ur chances of getting my ballot. *good debating can change any of these thoughts

case:

-ran mostly soft left affs in high school but idc what aff you read

-no, teams don't need to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan but u should have a reason why you aren't

-tell me how to frame the impacts of the 1ac otherwise i default to magnitude x probability

-your impact scenarios should probably be more than two, 5-sentence cards

-for neg - case turns r super cool and good

-plz don’t drop ur case :(

T:

-competing interps > reasonability

-definition quality matters !!

-potential abuse can be a voter but in-round abuse is more persuasive

-if u go for T it should be all 5 min of the 2NR

-T is not a reverse voter

theory:

-theory is cool; neutral on all theories except disclosure (DISCLOSE TO UR OPPONENT)

-generally think condo is fine *if your strat is to bombard the aff with 9 off and hope they drop something, pref me low

-almost all theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team

-i dislike when teams try to trick their opponents into dropping their 3 sentence theory that was shoved into a T shell - if u do this i’ll be very open to the other team getting new answers

-some theories are not cool, pls don’t read them or i will tank ur speaks (eg. formal clothes theory or shoes theory)

disads:

-DAs that turn case make me happy

-for aff - link turns to DAs make me happy

-plz have a coherent link chain

-good ptx DAs are rare but awesome

-yes, do impact calc

cps:

-should prob be functionally and textually competitive

-this should go without saying but i’ll say it anyways: u need to prove why the cp is better than the plan to win it

-i won’t judge kick unless u tell me to

-for aff - perms are good

ks:

-default to weighing the aff against the alt

-good for ks of reps/rhetoric, cap, set col, anthro, statism, security, etc.; anything beyond that you’ll need to explain a bit more

-no matter what k ur reading u need to clearly articulate the links, impacts, and alt (put the work in even if ur reading a generic k)

-for aff - just saying ‘extinction outweighs’ is less persuasive than actually engaging with the k

k affs v. FW:

for aff:

-i don’t think that FW is inherently violent

-turning their impacts is good, prob better than counter interps of their definitions

-prove to me why your model of debate is better

-i think the 1ac should defend something and a shift from the squo, what that something happens to be is up to you

for neg:

-if your model of debate completely prevents kritikal args from being ran i will have a hard time voting for it

-having a TVA is prob good but not necessary

-i’m pretty neutral between education/skills impacts and clash/fairness - both can be persuasive

SPEAKS (nat circuit only):

• a 28.5 = average, above that means good job and below that means practice more or be nicer

• anything below a 27 means you did something wrong (were super rude or left like 3 minutes left in a speech)

Hi! My name is Jason, and I debated Policy for Homestead for 4 years.

Please put me on the chain: jpandebate@gmail.com

I have certain predispositions about arguments, but I will evaluate off a basis of whoever did the better debating unless told otherwise.

*Note* I know nothing about this topic, so please don't assume that I'll understand everything

*Online Debate* Send your prewritten analytics out, I won't catch everything, and it makes a big difference in me being able to hear you make your args.

General Vices:

Tech > Truth A dropped argument is a true argument

Warrantless claims don't count

Speed is fine, don't abuse it

If your card is good, make it known to me; if it turns out not to be good, then it's more likely I'll just strike it off my flow

Case debate is underrated - make the Aff work for it

Clash is never bad

Please time your own prep

Clipping means an automatic L

If you ask me to judge kick, I'll do it for you

Don't be sexist/racist; I'll be sad.

Theory:

RVIs are bad, and if you make it a voting issue, I will be very unhappy

Absent a devastating concession; most theory is likely a reason to reject the arg and not the team except condo

Good theory debates are great; bad theory debate makes me want to die inside

T:

T is a prior question

I'll default to competing interps unless told otherwise

Limits are good but unpredictable, and arbitrary limits are not

If your definition ev on either side sucks, I'll be far less likely to vote for you

DAs:

Topic disads are your friend, high-quality link debate and research will be awarded

Many ptx disads are absolute nonsense, but theoretical objections to such disads are probably false

Defend your ev and scenario; I will vote on zero risk

Impact calc makes me much more likely to vote for you.

Turns case analysis is great - do it

CPs:

If I don't understand your CP, I most definitely won't vote on it - an overview is always appreciated

Squirrelly CPs appeal to me - justify your abuse, and I'll vote on it

CPs should functionally and textually complete - however, I am easily swayed in bending the rules

I won't vote on Perm do both without an explanation of how said perm works - it doesn't have to be long, but it should be there

Net benefits should be fleshed out

If your CP doesn't solve some aspect of the Aff, it's unlikely that I'll vote on it

Ks:

Don't assume I understand your theory of power because I probably don't

That being said, the K has tons of neat tricks that you should employ to their fullest

The link debate is crucial; contextual links are always better than generic ones - state bad links are not convincing

My thoughts about perms apply here as well - but a good perm will win you the round in my book

Role of the ballot claims are usually self-serving but, if explained well, will affect how I evaluate the debate

Attacking the methods of the Aff when running the K against a K Aff is probably a good idea -however, be warned that I am not the best judge for this

Alts are usually absolute nonsense and can't compete with the plan - that being said, a K without an alt is a non-unique disad

Planless/Critical Affs:

A debate should occur, and speech times should be enforced

The closer to the topic your aff is, the more sympathetic I will be on fairness claims - fairness itself, however, is not necessarily an impact

Defending a counter interp that solves for the neg's offence is much more persuasive to me than debate bad

Winning framework should probably win you the debate - describing an alternative model of debate that competes with the Neg's interp will definitely win you the debate

Ask yourself what voting aff means in the context of the impact - if I can't answer that question at the end of the debate, then I am vastly more inclined to err neg

LD:

In the unfortunate scenario where I become your judge, there are a couple of things I would like to mention :

1. I have never been an LD debater

2. Go for tricks and Phil at your own risk, I probably won't understand them, and even if I do, it's unlikely I'll be a good judge for such debates

3. I'll have a slightly lower threshold for theory for LD, but no, I won't vote you up because you marginally won ASPEC.

4. Everything else above still applies - do the better debating, and you'll have my ballot

Speaks:

I'll be honest and say that I have no idea how high speaks should be, so you'll probably get better speaks than you should have probably had

Civility, respect and and alignment to league policies are expected.

I am heavily focused on the clarity of your arguments; specifically, the flow of cause-and-effect links to your ultimate Impacts.

Many debaters get lost in the transitions from argument to argument; focus on the clarity of the linkages/transitions which connect your speech together. Provide a Rebuttal which summarizes how your Main Arguments connect to a MAJOR IMPACT which significantly affects society.

Many debaters get lost on the transition between the current argument and the next point. Transition statements between ideas and arguments help the Judge follow your flow. Clarity of the flow of argumentation and the Final Impact are key, here. CLARITY of the flow of your arguments are key.

Tell us how your arguments uphold your Values and Value Criterion in your Final Rebuttal, as well as their essential link to the Final Impact.

I'm not a judge.

Favorite Movie: Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter

I am a very simple judge. I prefer stats and logic over something that you know off the top of your head. I also do not understand speed all that well, I'm trying my best with it but I've had trouble understanding it since my debate years. PLEASE HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING YOU ARE GOING TO READ. I will not stress that enough. Little to no evidence will cost you an entire round with me as your judge.I love when competitors clash especially during CX (trust I did it during debates a lot), so just generally clash but don't be rude about it. I will listen to outrageous (out of the box cases) and I find them fun. So if you are willing to do it and take the risk, go for it! Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and any other negative -phobias or -isms will absolutely not be tolerated. You'll get the lowest speaks I can give and I'll find a reason to drop you. Debate is meant to be inclusive, not hurtful. I'll give you pretty high speaks unless you're rude or offensive.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

I'm a retired attorney, and this is my 13th year of involvement with debate, congressional debate, and forensics. My undergraduate and master's work were in critical reviewing applied to artistic performance disciplines. My professional life has been devoted to framing arguments, crafting refutation arguments and determining the appropriate criteria for evaluation of virtually any type of presentation. I'm a kind and thoughtful person whose main goal is for you to hone skills and become a confident, logical and gracious person.

My life as a lawyer absolutely shapes my approach as a debate judge. I expect the Aff to define the parameters of the debate, and the Neg to attack those ideas DIRECTLY; the proverbial "clash of ideas." I long for the day when the Neg accepts the Aff's framework and beats them on those terms. A distinct v/vc should be woven into the Neg arguments, but should not be presented like a script. The debate should not look like two people giving side-by-side presentations. Aff frames/defines; Neg reacts and refutes. You can guess from this that I am not a big fan of kritiks when the Neg spends too much time on a presentation that does not actively engage. The goal is to be flexible and nimble with what is thrown at you in the moment. I expect the argument to narrow as the debate goes along which may mean you must jettison arguments that aren't getting traction. I disfavor new arguments in summation. Please remember that new arguments are disallowed in rebuttals, but new evidence is not.

I intensely dislike "spreading" because it is a dishonest approach to the debate. I do not believe debate is a card game where the person who jams more ideas/cites more cards into the time period wins, and/or wins hoping the opponent "dropped' something. Dropping an argument is not a point scored on a ledger. It is an opportunity to argue the point from your perspective.

Spreading negatively impacts your opponent’s ability and my ability to absorb your arguments. I can't evaluate arguments that I can’t properly follow. I will caution you if you are speaking too fast. Repeatedly if I have to. But at some point, if you don't adjust, it will impact your speaker points. The most important things to me are the quality and depth of your presentation. You don't have gobs of time to play with so impress me with your reasoning. Please don't cite a card that you don't discuss or are unprepared to defend. Depth and quality rule with me. Accordingly, I do not use a traditional "flow sheet" and I really don't want your written case. I reward people who are fast on their feet.

I do not permit "flex time" and view it as a sneaky way to obtain more cross-x time than permitted. And speaking of cross-x, it should not be an occasion to engage in a discussion/mini debate with your opponent. I will caution you if you step over that line. Cross-x is meant for pointed clarifying questions and allowing your opponent to respond to your queries. If he or she doesn't reply to your satisfaction, then use it in your rebuttal.

I'm okay with counterplans providing the CP does not monopolize the first Neg speech by disallowing enough time for the first negative rebuttal. Counterplans must be shaped in a way that targets the Aff framework.

I am weary of overly-used frameworks like morality/util and unsound impacts like “morality doesn’t matter if we’re dead.” I look for a fresh, creative lens to view the resolution/impacts. I appreciate creativity that addresses real world concerns. Your value and criterion should not be a means to an easy win. It should reflect how deeply you’ve thought about the resolution. We're not all going to die tomorrow. What can we do in the meantime to improve our lot? That takes more intellectual prowess to tackle and is more impressive to me.

Finally, I expect debaters to be kind and gracious. I place high priority on good sportsmanship. Debaters who are kind and gracious will find higher speaker points. I will step in to caution debaters who are rude or unkind to opponents. I expect debaters to understand that everyone is doing the best they can, and that our circumstances and resources are often very different. So, I expect you to meet your opponent “where they are” not where you expect them to be.

Best of luck and best wishes to all.