Cabrerajosue680@gmail.com

Clarity vs. Speed

Understanding of the arguments

Organized

Engaging and persuasive communication

Refutation that is relative to the topic 

Teamwork

Tabula Rasa - within reasonable limits (emphasis on reason and logic)

I approach the debate as a clean slate and expect speakers to persuade me on why their position should be voted on while using the files as support. I am comfortable with fast or slow speakers, along with counterplans and disadvantages. This does not mean I appreciate spreading!

Since I tend to focus on speakers arguing their positions, I place a lot of weight on the cross examination, impacts, dropped arguments, and rebuttals. If you get asked a question, do your best to answer it. I live for a good clash! So take your time to flow each others’ ideas in order to effectively prioritize which topics you will address.

FAQ:

Open or closed CX, it’s your choice.

No, I will not disclose speaker points.

I prefer clarity over speed.

Email: Tienloe@dallasisd.org

Feel free to ask questions before the debate!

Most importantly: have fun and be kind!

Tim Glass
Policy Coach, Southern Methodist University (2010 - 2013)
Policy Coach, University of Illinois (2005-2007)
Policy Debater, Miami (OH) University (2001-2005)
Rounds on topic: Whatever it says below
Years Judging: 10+
Updated 9/23

I work as a "policy-maker", not an academic or philosopher, and I am not a full-time debate coach/judge. I try to know as much as possible about the topic and critical questions but cannot make any guarantees.

***Paperless Debate - I'm adopting the emerging consensus on this: your prep time use ends when you hand the flash drive over to your opponents OR insert it into the viewing computer. Also, please limit what you hand your opponents to what you honestly intend to read - don't give them your entire Saudi DA file when you're only reading page 17. Let's make paperless debate habits mimic what was the norm in the paper days.

----------

AFFs - I believe that the affirmative case must support the resolution (i.e. must be "topical"). That is not limiting to any styles of debate or ways of engaging the topic, but "critiquing the resolution" is generally, in my mind, negative ground only.

Theory - I tend to favor the team that's doing more explanation/comparison rather than try to hunt through little a)-gg) from both teams. Don't just read blocks back and forth with each other. Impact your arguments and make comparisons.

T - I am not afraid to vote on topicality. T is all about comparison. I have no strong preference for in-round abuse vs. competing interpretations vs. jurisdiction.

K - I prefer specificity and explanation to evidence. The density of critical evidence requires more reflection by the teams and better strategic use of the specific warrants to each argument.

Evidence - I'll defer to the debaters in their speech. To avoid this use your evidence - cite the cards, explain the warrants, only use well-warranted evidence whenever possible. If your card is better but the other team explains their card better, then they win the point, sorry.

Case - I love a good case debate. I enjoy case turns and takeouts. I give teams that do good impact analysis and evidence comparison way more leeway when making a decision than teams that don't but instead over-focus on line-by-line arguments without giving me a picture, particularly in final rebuttals.

Risk calculation / framework - I default to a utilitarian viewpoint unless otherwise instructed by the outcome of the round's argumentation, but I am open to any well-reasoned method of evaluating a debate round. I do believe that there is such a thing as "zero risk" of an advantage or disad if defensive arguments are devastating enough.

Performance - I'm okay with it but I think like many others I have seen its value diminish over time. I do not want to hear a 9 minute song and then call it a speech (if it's not the original work of the debater giving the "speech"). That won't get you many speaker points, just like reading a single nine minute card would not. Fusing music or dance or whatever with your own speech act is probably the best way. If you're going to play a song or video, make it useful for you.

Other notes / personal quirks:
-I try not to give non-verbals as I don't want to influence the round as it happens - the only exception is to ask for a speaker to be "clearer";
-Generally I also don't want to be asked questions or something as part of a speech (I don't want my answers to influence arguments);
-No RVIs, don't care;
-No shouting in Cross-X; tag-teaming is cool but keep it to a minimum, don't have a dominant partner; I pay attention to, and might even flow, CX;
-No swearing preferred, there are more persuasive words than "f**k";

If you have questions email me at glasstc@gmail.com

HS Policy Debate: 3 Years

College Policy Debate: 2 years

Ran mostly K leaning arguments when I debated. Open to anything being read in front of me.

I value two things in particular:

1) Explain to me why you won at the end of the debate, my favorite debates are the ones where the debaters write the RFD for me.

2) When debates turn into a question of which pedagogy should be preferred, I am very swayed by the transferability of one form of pedagogy over another outside of the debate round.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts!

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

I'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

Hi I'm Dhruva Mambapoor!

I debated for four years in LD at Westwood HS (2018). I qualified for the TOC and NSDA. I have been an assistant coach for Westwood and then Greenhill over the past 5 years.

email: dmambapoor+tabroom@gmail.com

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

Pref Shortcuts:

LARP: 1

K: 2

Phil: 3

Theory: 4

Tricks: Strike

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

Overview to How I Evaluate Debates:

I evaluate arguments based on credence. This may be a bad explanation of this or not even close to the actual judging style based on argument's credence values. Basically, I don't start of every argument at 100%. Instead each argument has a certain validity to it, from 0 to infinity and beyond.

How compelling or credible an argument is, I base on two factors:

1. If your justifications are true, how well does the conclusion logically follow.

2. How well does it fit my background knowledge on the subject.

The second usually happens unconsciously, but I've decided to mention it, so you know that I have biases. If I recognize the bias, I will account for it, but recognizing my own bias is a difficult task. You can override the second factor by simply filling in the gaps where I would put my background knowledge. If you say your shirt is green because you rolled around in the grass, that would make sense because I think grass is green and stains clothes. If I didn't, you simply have to say your shirt is green because you rolled around in a green grass field which stains clothes.

If there are no arguments in the debate that are compelling or have decent enough warrants, then I will lower my standards until someone has sufficient offense for me to vote. The more I lower my standards the riskier the debate becomes.

So then what's compelling and fits my background info? see below

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

The Specifics of the Common Positions:

Topicality/Theory:

A debate whose key characteristic is often blitzing through analytics is very risky in front of me because I tend to miss a lot especially when I can't verify with another source of information like a doc or its a common shell I've heard before. You can read theory, just make sure you can really implement the solutions given at the top of this paradigm. That also doesn't mean you can be as abusive as you want. I will give more leeway to common T/Theory (Pics bad, 2+ condo bad, infinite NIBs bad, etc.). That given, reading theory strategically instead of reading it to check abuse (or often both), is ok, but because T/Theory is naturally harder for me to flow and understand, it probably isn't strategic anyways.

Extra note for topicality:

I read basically only plan affs in HS, so I will understand them and the subsequent T/Theory debates more. If you have an untopical K aff, great! I also understand that subsequent T/theory debate more than other T debates as well. As the aff, I just need a stronger defense of why you are untopical and a more easy to understand explanation of the theories behind the K aff. And No, I'm not going to reject the aff just because its untopical. Against K affs, I'm also more interested in an neg strategy that engages with case. That just means I will pay more attention (unconsciously) to neg strategies without T in it or at the least has substantive case answers.

Kritik:

Don't assume I know the lit behind, because I probably don't. In HS I read: Deleuze, Culp (Dark Deleuze), Cap. I have some knowledge on: Deleuze, Culp, Wilderson, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bataille, Freud and Lacan, Marx, Zizek. I have a little knowledge on: Derrida, Fanon, Queer Pess, Buddhism.

I have high standards for the alt. It should, ideally, resolve the impact, or propose and thoroughly explain some shift in paradigm/lens that is competitive with the aff and is more net beneficial than continuing with the aff paradigm.

Phil:

Don't assume I know the lit behind it. In HS I read: Util, Generic Structural Violence, and Koorsgard (Kant-ish). I have some knoweldge on: Util, Koorsgaard, Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Levinas. I have a little knowledge on: Scanlon, Jaeggi, Hegel, Grievability.

I love util and SV frameworks. As a good rule of thumb, I will like frameworks that are grounded in materiality more. However, I can like a good phil debate if each argument is developed and fleshed out. I do not like phil debates with a lot of dumps and blippy analytics.

CP:

If you run a CP, the burden of proof shifts to you. If the aff and the CP are very similar then I need a strong net benefit to vote neg. The CP alone needs to be better than the perm to win the CP.

Disads:

Easiest debates for me to understand. I love a good DA debate. If its big-stick (nuclear war, etc.), which it probably is, then I have high standards for evidence. It should at least indicate extinction (or whatever the scope) is possible, or it's paired with a compelling analytic that indicates extinction is possible or you explain why the evidence would imply this well in cross-ex.

Politics:

I'm not as informed as I would like to be. Given that, I won't be able to verify many analytics so most if not all arguments should have evidence. I will give more leeway to responses because its hard to have applicable evidence to strange politics scenarios or weirdly structured ones.

Disclosure:

Disclosing open source is preferred. Disclosing full text is functionally mandatory. If you read a disclosure shell, you must include a screenshot with a timestamp.

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

Speaker Points:

1. If you read circuit-style arguments (Theory, Tricks) against novice or traditional debaters, I will dock speaks (-2).

Final Remarks:

You can change any of the above with warranted arguments. No I don't mean just good arguments, I mean make arguments with claims like "Big-stick impacts don't need to indicate extinction", "Frameworks grounded in materiality are oppressive", etc. Be very explicit and clear with the paradigm you want me to adopt, and then warrant it well.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me, or ask before the round.

I prefer clarity over spreading.

I am not the biggest fan of K's. However, I am a huge fan of T shells and CP's if done properly

I am currently a Law teacher and debate coach at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas. I am a former attorney - I even have experience in the fossil fuel industry! I did not compete in debate in high school or college, but I did compete in Mock Trial and Moot Court in college.

I have judged about 10 rounds on the water topic, and am familiar with most of the big cases like fracking, lead, and agricultural runoff. I have attended coach training and have worked with our head coach to learn debate. I lead our novice and JV program.

In debates, I prefer that you speak at a conversational speed, perhaps a little quicker. I value evidence quality over quantity, so please do not just keep reading evidence without contextualizing it to the arguments in the debate.

I am most familiar with policy-style debate, but I am open to learning new things. I would like to be on the speech doc chain - dopitz@dallasisd.org. If you have any questions before the debate, I am happy to answer them. I value partnership communication and general kindness towards others very highly, please make it a pleasant experience for all :)

Debated policy for 4 years at Greenhill, currently at UT Austin

she/her

Add me to the chain pls: madison4rojas@gmail.com

TLDR: Do what you do best and have fun!

-POLICY-

Rounds judged on this topic: 5-10

More specific things:

tech over truth

(^^ A complete argument must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact.)

I don't usually flow the 1AC and 1NC since I'll spend that time reading through your ev.

not disclosing is for cowards- please disclose!

I think reading an aff about the topic (and with a plan) is usually a good thing.

Reading a short overview and spending more time doing line-by-line is much better than reading a 3-minute overview and then spending the rest of your speech saying, "We answered this in the overview."

I love a good Aff vs. K debate. I am most familiar with literature on settler colonialism, abolition, and critiques of IR. That being said please do not assume I know anything about your specific literature area. I think that the best k debates happen when teams read links specific to the aff and can articulate why the 1AC is wrong/bad. Engage with the aff (ex. re-highlight cards, indict authors read in the 1AC, etc.)!!

I generally think condo is good but can definitely be convinced otherwise

I generally believe that fairness is both an internal link and an impact

I really value judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR - please make this a priority. When you lose debates you should've won, it's probably because you left a lot of arguments unresolved thus subject and up to judge (my) intervention. If you want me to vote for you tell me why you've won.

Online debate

Please don't start unless I have my camera on.

Slow down please! If you normally speak at a 10, take it down to an 8.5. If I can't understand you I will let you know.

-WSD-

"I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes." - Rosie Valdez

Weigh things in rebuttal speeches! Impact calc is essential!

(See above for more about my feelings on judge instruction!)

Last few things:

Debate should be a fun and rewarding activity- we're both here because we love it! Please be respectful to you're opponents. I will not tolerate harassment, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or misogyny of any kind.

Please feel free to email me with any follow-up questions after the round!

+0.1 speaks if you open-source ALL your ev on the wiki (show me after the 2AR).

yay debate!!!

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

Hello, I've been judging policy debate since the Fall of 2020 to the present (Spring of 2024). This is my second year serving as head debate coach, and I also have experience in LD and World Schools Debate.

Previously to being a High School AP World History teacher at the School of the Talented and Gifted at Townview in Dallas, I served as an instructor in both the English and the Latin American Latino Studies Departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I incorporated debate into my courses.

As such, my approach to judging could be described as a synthesis between a policy making judge and a tabula rasa judge. When deciding a round I try to put myself into the shoes of a national legislator who must vote for the best policy offered in the debate, focusing on the AFFs plan and the NEGs ability to clash on the feasibility implementing the AFF or the NEGs ability to present a more preferable counter plan. And I like to adopt the posture of a tabula rasa judge because it is unfair for judge's to vote based on their own knowledge of the issues and/or their own politics.

So, I leave it to the debaters to demonstrate gaps in the opponent's plans, contradictions of values, or to extend each others timelines, minimize each others magnitudes, break link chains, impact calculus etc. As such, your rebuttals are key for giving me a path to voting for your plan, so be sure to flow the debate, and give your most strategic clashes for the most important grounds.

And, for me anyway, whatever you say under your timed speech always already enters the record as grounds for the debate, I do not strike out previously made claims if you happen to lose on those grounds later on in the match.

Also, I really appreciate it when students argue in good faith about the resolution as opposed to when students choose to argue about the rules of policy debate instead. I mean, in a way, it makes sense. Students should not introduce new evidence in rebuttals and if something like that occurs, then I am flexible to hearing your claims. But if the entire hour-and-a-half round is about the technicalities of CX policy debate then I feel like we are wasting our time / avoiding the actual topic.

Final note: debaters must use evidence ethically, quoting with integrity to the source. If your evidence gets called into question and it is clear that the evidence says the opposite of what you claim, or does not exist, then this may impact the way that particular argument is evaluated. Please CC me into the round's email chain entitled" Tournament name, Round #, school-1 vs school-2" at: nesandoval@dallasisd.org

I am a debate coach.

I flow each round and vote based on my notes.

Teams that do not drop arguments tend to do well.

I do not entertain new arguments in the Negative block (2NR/1NR) unless rebutting new arguments from the 2 AC.

I pay close attention to stock issues.

All types of arguments can be presented, including Ks.

I am open to giving feedback after a round if the tournament allows it.

I debated at Colleyville Heritage from 1997-2001, and at Dartmouth from 2001-2005.

A few rules:

1. Be Clear - I can't evaluate your positions if I can't understand you. At this stage, clarity is more important than speed.

2. Be Nice - Do not engage in anything approaching overly aggressive or disrespectful behavior. A failure to do will lose you the round.

3. Be Good - I am generally very open minded about most arguments, just explain them and why the arguments you're winning means you win the round.

Kiran

Sita Yerramsetti (sitamly@gmail.com)

The Kinkaid School '16

Harvard College '20

I debated for four years in high school at Kinkaid as both a 2A and a 2N, qualifying to the TOC twice. In high school, I generally read center-left affs (affs with plan texts and structural violence impacts) but also read some big-stick policy affs and critical affs; I went for a wide range of NEG arguments, from topicality to psychoanalysis kritiks to elections disads.

What you should know about how I think about debate:

1. I'm not very familiar with the water topic, which means that you should be extra thorough in your explanations of topic-specific arguments. Do not assume that I know what obscure acronyms stand for - even if you've been using them since camp - or what community consensus is about certain issues (topicality interpretations, etc.).

2. Argumentatively, you should feel free to do what you want, but I am candidly not the best judge for pomo-type kritiks on either the AFF or the NEG - doesn't mean you can't read them, but you will have to put some extra effort into explaining all of your buzzwords and how they relate to the aff and/or the topic.

3. Debates in high school are often won and lost in the framing of the 2NR/2AR. The best debaters can isolate the nexus question of a debate and focus their last speeches on controlling it. "Even if" statements are your best friend: rarely are you winning EVERY part of the debate, and addressing potential weaknesses makes you look smart and makes your strategy stronger.

4. Tech > truth (except for morally reprehensible arguments, which will always lose), but I rarely consider arguments in isolation. If one team points out a technical concession but the other team is controlling the meta-issue of the debate that clearly deals with the dropped argument, the argument wasn't actually dropped. However, you still need to flow and, in some way, answer all relevant arguments, regardless of your style of debate (many of the best K debaters I know are very technically proficient even if they're not flow-centric).

5. Lots of things, including framing and strategic thinking, affect speaker points, but presentation-wise, the following things are the most important:

A) Clarity - Don't try to go too fast; speed < clarity in all instances. I will say "clear" twice if I can't understand you but then will probably just put my pen down and stop flowing. Look up once in a while to make sure I'm understanding you and also see my reactions to your arguments.

B) Cross-x - Treat it like a speech by preparing meaningful questions in advance and approaching it with a strategy. Using cross-x to generate arguments and understandings you can refer to in your speeches will make your speeches more efficient and get you higher speaker points.

C) "Flowability" - Make your speeches as easy for me to flow as possible. Slow down on long blocks of analytics (especially for T and theory) and important parts of the debate you want to make sure I flag; give me pen time between different pieces of paper (I don't flow on my computer); use vocal inflection to indicate when you're moving on from an issue or when you're making a big thesis claim; avoid jumping around the flow.

6. Having great evidence is basically useless if you can't explain it well. In a lot of cases, I'll only read cards to verify claims made by debaters or settle disputes of interpretation, so don't assume I'll fill in your authors' sick warrants for you after the debate based on your tagline extensions. Especially in debates where I will have to read lots of cards (politics, etc.), you would really benefit from doing nuanced evidence comparison.

7. I'm really not a fan of long overviews (obviously, there are exceptions, like kritiks for which you need to explain a lot of complicated terms). If you find yourself saying "that was in the overview" repeatedly or saying "moving on to the line-by-line" after three minutes have elapsed, that's not good. Debates are generally better organized if the content of overviews is simply placed in relevant places on the line-by-line.

8. Don't steal prep, clip cards, be shady with disclosure, or be mean to your partner or your opponents; also, of course, remember to have fun!

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round. Good luck!

The debaters who presented their ideas in a more logical and convincing way play a critical role in determining which team is going to win.