Hi! My name is Madelyn and I am a PF debater at Blake. Please add me to the email chain: mrbesikof22@blakeschool.org

I do flow and will vote off of the flow. Evidence is super important. Please read cut cards and have the actual card prepared to send to your opponents if they ask for it. Keep track of your own prep time.

Some things I want to see in the round:

1. Rebuilding/frontlining in the second rebuttal, and responding to your opponent's case.

2. Extending arguments in summary and final focus - choose the responses that you think are the strongest to extend in summary/final focus and make sure that you extend the same arguments in both speeches. Extend links, warrants, impacts, don't just extend a card.

3. Collapse on your arguments in summary and final focus.

4. Extend your impacts - explain them and convince me that your impacts matter more than your opponent's impacts.

5. Weighing - this is the most important thing you can do to convince me to vote off your impacts. Don't just say, "we outweigh on probability", explain why you outweigh, why your impacts matter.

6. Be respectful and have fun!

Hi! I'm Mira (meer-uh) and I'm a national qualifier from Maple Grove. I'm a senior, so this is my fourth year of debating :)

In General:

- I can flow really quick, so go whatever speed you want. Just make sure that everyone in the round can understand you.

- If you want something to stay on the flow, bring it up consistently (especially in summary!). I won't evaluate evidence brought up after summary by the con.

- I flow cross, so be careful not to let opps trip you up.

- Weigh every chance you get. Tell me what's important and I'll listen, because even if you lose your opps case, you can still win the round.

- Be chill - it's just a debate, there's no reason to get super heated. I'll dock points every time I hear you get aggressive or steamroll someone else in the round.

- If you include a Taylor Swift reference I'll give you 30 speaks

Hi! I'm a second year out (second year at UVA) and debated PF on the nat circuit for Blake for 3 years, qualifying for the gold TOC twice. I now coach for Blake in a limited capacity.

Add me on the email chain: wyattdayhoff@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com please :)

TLDR: I'm a tech judge, I'll evaluate pretty much whatever. Most of my takes come from Joshua Enebo and Christian Vasquez, so take a look at their paradigms and they will for sure be more in depth than what I say :D

Few highpoints:

• you have to frontline in 2nd reb
• defense is NOT sticky

• You get prep outside of your 3 mins when the other team is getting evidence to send to email chain. If they can't get it in a reasonable time I'm open to striking it from the flow
• Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh! It's easily the biggest factor in determining my ballot
• I hate paraphrasing so don't do it– I'm likely to vote on paraphrasing theory
• I'm open to any prog argumentation but I'm inexperienced with it so be very clear if you do run it
• I hate friv theory and prob won't vote for it

General:

- I can probably flow basically any speed, but please send a speech doc if you are going to spread

- If you want me to evaluate something, it better be in summary. I won't evaluate anything new in FF unless it's responding to new weighing coming from 2nd summary. To be clear, weighing for the first team should start in 1st summary. If you don't extend a link in summary clearly, I won't vote on it.

- Please weigh. It's your best friend in round because even if you lose their case, you can still win the round. If you don't weigh your argument, it's really hard for me to vote on it. Also, weighing needs to be comparative. Don't just tell me why you're case matters, tell me why it matters more than the other team's argument. Just saying "we outweigh on probability" means absolutely nothing.

- Debate should be a fun activity, so please try to be as chill as possible, it makes the round better for everyone and will probably earn you higher speaks.

- I will not tolerate racist, homophobic, or sexist comments in round and will give you a 20 at best, and drop you at worst.

Evidence:

- I hate paraphrasing. I think it's a scourge to debate ethics and makes debates overly sloppy and warrantless. I'll be very happy to vote on paraphrasing bad, but I will legit never vote for paraphrasing good. Just don't read it in front of me. While I'm not as gung ho as him, refer to Josh's paradigm and I tend to agree with him.

- If you don't read a card name in your rebuttal (regardless of if it's paraphrased or not), it's an analytic. I won't consider a card that you send if you didn't say the name in speech, that's super abusive because you can just pick any card you want.

- If you can't find your evidence (PROPERLY CITED) in 2 mins or less, I'm striking it from my flow and treating it as an analytic. It will be clear if you actually have your evidence or not.

- I would much prefer that you do an email chain rather than a Google doc. If you do a Google doc, there should be copy access and you should not remove the other team's access after the round– that defeats the purpose of sharing evidence.

- As much as I like evidence, please don't just extend a card name without the warrant that accompanies it. Evidence alone can't win you the round unless you explicitly tell me why the evidence is so godly.

- If you want me to prefer your evidence over the other team's, you need to explain why. Just saying it's the most recent doesn't explain why recency is more important in that specific instance.

Theory:

- I rarely ever ran theory during my career, but I will evaluate it and I think it's important for the debate space. That said, I think frivolous theory (shoe theory, social distancing, etc) is stupid and I will neither understand it nor vote for it.

- As you probably saw in the evidence section, I will vote on paraphrasing bad, not paraphrasing good. If you go for paraphrasing theory, though, please try to direct me to one specific piece of ev that is horrendously paraphrased.

- I will absolutely vote on disclosure theory, I think it's a good practice for debate and I always did it.

- I've never run into trigger warning theory before so I don't really know how to evaluate it, but I'm willing to listen to it.

- IVIs have been used and abused recently and I really am not a fan. Please just be nice to each other, debate is not a personal attack on anyone.

Kritiks:

- I never ran any Ks in my time debating, but I think(?) I get the gist of them and will listen. Just don't expect me to always make the right decision because of my limited experience.

Cross:

- I won't flow it, but I will for the most part be listening. If you want something that happened in cross to appear in round, you gotta say it explicitly in speech.

- Cross is a time for questions. If you are asking follow up after follow up you are making cross unproductive and I'll lower your speaks.

- I already said this in the general section, but please be chill. Cross is the place where I see emotions boil over the most so please try to be patient with yourself and your opponents.

Speaks:

Unless you say something problematic, I'll evaluate speaks on a 26-30 scale.

26- this was rough– really hard to get this low of speaks

27- below avg

28- avg

29- you were good

30- you were unbelievably good, best I've seen at the tournament.

Updated: 12/9/2023

Hello! I'm a sophomore at college. I debated for four years in Minnesota and now do APDA in college. I mainly did LD, but know a bit about PF and Congress. I've only done traditional debate, but I have some baseline knowledge of some circuit-level arguments like kritiks and theory (more on that later). I qualified and competed in the State tournament three times in LD, so I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Debate. Glad you are reading this since most don't.

TL;DR:

Be nice; don't run stupid and random circuit arguments unless you can explain them well; weigh your arguments; don't lie in the last speech; don't use problematic arguments; I prefer cameras on but I won't really care; don't expect me to know exactly where Fuentes, 2018 is without telling me where it is; and please signpost.

General:

Don't purposely be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, or any other thing. Just. Don't. If you are, don't expect to win. Expect an L20 :)

Don't be passive-aggressive or belittle your opponent. This is all for fun and you shouldn't bully people because you know more about China than them. If you do, expect very low speaks. Maybe even a loss.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

You should be aware of who you are in the Debate space. Sure, in a round, you truly have no identity (you are just a debater who is trying to convince me you're right), but there's something strange about a white man using eco-fem or Black Anger. While I believe that you should be allowed to use arguments that don't pertain to you (for example, me, an Asian guy, talking about how something might perpetuate misogyny), I ask that you first try to reevaluate why you are using those arguments. Are you using them because you believe it or because it will grant you more bodies on the flow? If it's the latter, maybe rethink it.

I won't drop you because you used an argument that doesn't pertain to you at all, but it's something to recognize. A good question to ask yourself is if you would be comfortable making these arguments in a room where a person from that group is in. For example, if you are using an argument about Asian-Americans, would you still say it if an Asian-American was in the room? If not, you probably shouldn't make it at all.

Again, I won't ever hold it against you. I think that would be silly if I'm allowed to gatekeep arguments from you just because of who you are. But this is just a PSA for life in general.

Allowable arguments:

I'll vote on almost anything (except bigotry): even extinction and "death good" arguments. Be warned that certain arguments are much harder to prove. This means that I'm generally tech over truth.

Please please please have a trigger warning for anything that may trigger people (things like sexual assault, suicide, etc.). Especially if you use arguments that are descriptive of those triggering arguments. If you are using descriptive mentions of something that can be triggering, ask yourself if that is really necessary. There's no reason why you can't just mention their existence and still use them. Trust me, your argument doesn't become weaker because it's a non-descriptive mention of them.

Regarding Kritiks: as I said, I only did Trad debate, but I know what a K is and how it works. So do explain things to me very clearly if you use some weird literature for your K. If you hate that, sorry not sorry.

In terms of Theory: I am going to have a pretty high bar for a "drop the debater" voter. I'm also not going to weigh any frivolous T that is just... stupid. Sorry for the judge intervention but idc if you argue very well that I should vote for the shorter debater to stop height discrimination. Or something like first, last three words or whatever. Please stop.

Speeches and Rebuttals:

Please signpost. I'm not a mind reader; I can't magically tell where you are on the flow. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it. If I can't flow it, I can't give you that argument. If I can't give you that argument, I can't give you the win. If you use multiple arguments against something, number them. So don't get mad if you see a ballot that isn't in your favor because I didn't catch your third response to their fifth response in your first subpoint in your second contention that was about somelastnameyouspedthroughandididnotcatch, 2014.

Please address the fact that your opponent dropped your argument. If you drop the dropped argument, you don't get the point. Mention your opponent dropped something and extend it and say why that drop is important. For example, if the AFF dropped the NEG's contention two, then in the next speech say they did and explain why it's important.

Please weigh your arguments. I shouldn't (and won't) have to weigh them myself. Weighing them for me gives a clear reason to vote for you since you explain why your arguments are more important. If you forgot, the main weighing metrics are magnitude, probability, timeframe, and scope.

Don't lie in the very last speech. I get that if you're losing you have to say something like "I outweigh on this" even though you didn't. Who knows, maybe your last speech will persuade me to vote for you. What I mean by lying is saying something like, "My opponent dropped this" when they did not drop that. It's frustrating when something like this happens especially in front of a parent judge since you can't correct them. You'll lose speaks if you lie on purpose.

If you run out of time during a speech, finish your last thought. If you keep going, I will stop you.

Cross:

If time runs out during cross, I'll allow the person to answer the last question that was just asked.

This isn't a shouting competition: don't try to one-up your opponent.

Please answer the questions that are being asked to you. Being shady isn't a good strategy. Please stop if they ask you to stop.

Cross is binding, y'all.

I don't necessarily flow cross, but I am listening.

Specifically about crossfire in PF: I am really hating the using cross as a time to badger each other. PLEASE stick to asking questions. This isn't another rebuttal. Calm down. I have (and will) dock speaks because of the absolutely rude and terrible behavior I've seen during crossfires.

Speaking:

If you're gonna talk fast, only talk fast through your evidence. Please slow down while signposting or reading any tags or card names. Maybe even take a break after you say a tag, so I can flow it.

What really annoys me is when people just address something by card name especially if that card is the only one under a contention. Just mention the contention at that point. I get that you have to address it by card name sometimes but please tell me where it is. Sometimes I don't catch the author. Instead of saying "Johnson 20," say "Johnson 20: second card under my contention one." Remember, if you are just saying something and I have no idea where it is on the flow, don't be surprised you lost even though you extended that one magic card when I have no clue where it is or what it says.

I start my speaks at 27 and go up or down based on how well you are speaking and articulating your arguments.

In general for how I evaluate speaks, I consider how poised you are in your speaking (are you speaking with clarity, precision, being efficient with your sentences), how good you are at articulating your arguments, and how you are able to navigate and link between arguments. There's no formula for this.

Online Etiquette:

I prefer cameras on but I don't really care. I understand sometimes cameras just aren't feasible for a lot of reasons. Online debate makes it so much harder to hear so if you're talking fast, speak very clearly and slow down for tags. Covid really did a number on Debate etiquette and it surprises me so much. Just don't be eating or something. It's more important than in-person debates that you ask if everyone is ready.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say, "I win because..." or "you have to vote neg because..." No, I don't have to vote for you. That is my decision.

If you are using Kant, you should not care about consequences. If you care about consequences, you are using it wrong. I'll still consider your framework as is, but I will not be happy.

Please ask if everyone is ready.

.

Sorry that this is long. Have any questions? Ask me before the round, and I will answer them.

For circuits that use email chains: phuong.doan7114@gmail.com. I probs won't look at it unless someone points out something sketchy or something. I just expect y'all to speak in a way that I can flow without me reading it. Otherwise, what's the point in speaking? I also think Debaters have the burden to tell me why a piece of evidence is good or bad. I'm not doing that for y'all.

Hi! I debate for Eastview. I've competed in PF for 3 years, mainly on the local circuit, occasionally on the national circuit.

I've debated this topic, so I'm familiar with most of the crypto lingo and concepts.

Add me to the email chain: 831902@apps.district196.org

I believe debaters should not have to completely change their style for each judge they get, so I'll try my best to adapt to you. But with that being said, here's a few of my personal preferences:

Off time roadmaps:

Unless you're doing something completely wild, please don't. If you signpost well I can follow!

Evidence ethics:

Please read cards instead of paraphrasing. I will call for a card if it gets indicted.

Speed:

I can handle most PF speeds, but if you start spreading, I stop flowing. I prefer conversational pace, but I understand this is not always possible. Also, please don't use speed as a way to dump tons of under-warranted, blippy responses. I'd much rather vote for 3-4 fleshed out responses that make sense.

Cross:

I pay attention here, but I don't flow, so make sure anything important gets explained in the next speech.

Rebuttal:

Please signpost, this ensures that every response you make finds itself on my flow. If you don't, this increases the chance I miss something. For second rebuttal: It is strategically wise to defend your own case. At the very least, respond to turns the opponents put on your case in first rebuttal. Also, please warrant and flesh out your responses. I much prefer 2-3 well-warranted responses to 6-7-8 blippy, underdeveloped ones.

Summary:

Either big picture summaries with voters or going line-by-line is fine with me. Please extend impacts if you want me to vote for them at the end of the round! It's kinda sus when they're dropped here and brought up in FF. And don't forget to WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH in this speech. Explain why your impacts matter more / should be prioritized over your opponent's. It makes my job a lot easier, and makes your chances of winning higher.

Final Focus:

Everything said here must be in summary for me to vote for it. No new arguments this late in the round. I don't like line-by-line here, I prefer a big picture approach to this speech. FF should mirror the summary in terms of the voters and arguments being extended. WEIGH!

K's / Theory: Nah. I'm not a big fan of progressive debate, and I'm not familiar on how to evaluate these arguments, so don't run them

-------

Speaker points:

I determine speaks based on good speaking style and smart strategy. I won't hesitate to drop your speaks if you are disrespectful, discriminatory, or condescending towards your opponents.

Pet Peeves:

When everyone gets mad for no reason. Also, please don't yell. If a round becomes heated, it's everyone's responsibility to calm things down a bit.

When debaters do unnecessarily loud countdowns for starting time. eg "I WILL START SPEAKING IN THREE, TWO, ONE." It's weird.

TL;DR: Have fun, debate confidently, make warranted arguments, weigh, be respectful, and you'll have a great round. Good luck!

Pretty standard stuff, I am in PF so I'm used to speed in round and can flow just fine. The only thing is if you want to go fast, annunciate everything. This is where most people drop speaks.

Aggression is fine, but keep it polite.

In cross fires please go question - answer. Don't use cross ex to bring in other evidence unless the opponent asks you to do so.

Finally, please use voters. If impacts come down to lives versus money, explain to me why each is more important to vote on.

Have fun! Good luck!

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

This is my fourth year judging as a parent, peak slowly, clearly, and no spreading. I try my best to flow, the slower you speak the easier it is for me to get your points down.

I expect teams to time themselves and use prep time properly.

Occasionally I will call out evidence at the end of the round, if it seems questionable or misused. In that case, email me the card at prasad.gunturi@gmail.com.

Be respectful to each other.

Hello, my name is Graham Heathcote. I am a First Year Out from The Blake School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I debated exclusively Public Forum in High school and relied heavily on the quality of my evidence when doing so. I share many of the same opinions as Blake judges and coaches.

My email is grahamkheathcote@gmail.com at me to the chain plz.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

TIPS FOR WINNING (NOVICES READ THIS)

My biggest piece of advice for novices would be to remain calm and relaxed throughout the debate. I'm not going to care how many times you stumble over your words or pause during your speech, so don't worry about it. Everyone debates best when they're relaxed, so just stay calm and try to make good arguments. That said, read below for more advice.

Tips are in order of importance.

1. Extend case. From the few novice rounds I have watched, this is where most teams tend to fall short. For me to vote for you, you have to explain (in-depth) your source of offense in both summary and final focus. It's not enough to simply frontline (respond to responses they made) and move on. Ask your coach or an older debater if this doesn't make sense. While extending card names is desirable, it isn't required.

2. Weighing. Weighing is explaining to me why I vote for your case and not your opponents. If neither team weighs, I am left in the dark on who to vote for and am therefore less likely to vote for you. Don't let this happen.

If you think you are losing the round, weighing and extending your case is probably your best bet for winning.

3. Frontline and extend responses. This goes without saying but for me to vote on a response, you must win the response but also extend it in every speech. Responses must be extended in both the summary and final focus. Extend things lmao.

4. Have good evidence. Your evidence should say what you say it says. I will call for cards that I think are illegitimate or too good to be true. Misreading evidence will drop your speaker points to a varying extent, depending on how bad the evidence is and how hard you push for the bad cards. Paraphrasing is tolerated but strongly discouraged. If you are going to paraphrase, you must have the cut cards you are paraphrasing from. These aren't my rules, these are new policies from the NSDA.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

HOW I VIEW DEBATE

- As long as everything is being properly extended, I don't care about narrative. I've never understood how debaters are expected to tell a story about how the round will go in the first rebuttal before anything has even happened.

- Tech over truth, but truth defines tech. If someone makes a ridiculous-sounding claim and has crappy evidence to support it, I will likely ignore it. If they have good evidence, then it is clearly not as ridiculous as first thought and will be taken into consideration.

- I don't like theory or IVIs. I will listen to it if I think there is actual abuse. When deciding whether to run theory, it may be worth taking into account my general views on the debate norm in question. I belive paraphrasing = bad, disclosure = irrelevant but maybe good, full text = unnecessary, spreading = immoral, trigger warnings = good if graphic content, otherwise irrelevant.

- I despise so called "pre-fiat offence" and will almost certainly not vote for it.

- Speed is ok, but spreading is not.

- The second rebuttal must answer the first one. I recommend collapsing down to a singular contention or subpoint in second rebuttal. Any arguments not responded to in the second rebuttal are conceded. My threshold for extensions of defense in the first summary if it is conceded in the second rebuttal is very low.

- Defense must be extended in both summaries.

- Weighing should start as early as possible. New weighing in first final focus is semi-acceptable but not ideal. New weighing in second final focus is too late. I don't think that proving your impact triggers quicker than your opponents is a weighing mechanism. You need intervening actors weighing or a prerequisite to actually give me a reason to prefer your impact over your opponents here.

- I treat linkins as new offense not an answer to an argument. That means that if you read a linkin to answer an argument, it doesn't automatically answer an argument, although it does provide you with some offense. You need to weigh the offense coming off of your linkin over the opponents argument in order to win here.

- Paraphrasing is discouraged. If you have non-paraphrased cases or blocks I would recommend reading them in front of me. If you don't, it isn't the end of the world but in cases where there is a clash of cards, I will take evidence over paraphrased nonsense every day. If you paraphrase you may not go very fast. Very Fast is relative - that said if I feel as though you are reading too little of your cards and are speaking fast to exclude your opponents from the round you will lose.

-Jokes are encouraged if they are funny.

- I don't like super bro-ey debate.

- I really don't like teams who read big DA's or massive turns in rebuttal to the point where you are effectively reading a new contention. I see this as an unfair strategy, especially when done in second rebuttal. I'm fine with reading lots of fully developed turns, but I draw the line when turns start to require uniqueness, internal links, and external impacts.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

FORMATIVE NOTES

- If we are in person I don't care where you sit.

- If we are online then please keep cameras on if you can.

- Keep your own time. I'll let you finish your sentence, but any arguments started after time will be dropped.

- Be assertive, but be kind to your opponents, failure to do so will drop your speaker points. You already know this, but homophobic/sexist/racist/ableist comments will get you a L20

- Don't yell during your speeches or make violent hand motions, you look dumb. I say this as someone who yelled and made violent hand motions in speeches when I debated.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

SPEAKER POINTS

I see no role for Speaker Points. That said I understand that some people care a lot about them and I'm sympathetic to that. Just like all other judges, I try to give the better speakers better speaker points. However, just like other judges, I am subjective in doing so. I wouldn't worry about what speaker points I, or any other judge, gave you. If you debated really well, you probably won. If you debated poorly, you may have lost.

That said, I do try to give better speaks to more positive, fun to be around, debaters. Aside from debating well, this is my only other recommendation for getting good speaker points.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Ask me before round if you have any questions.

Also I'll disclose and give a verbal RFD if allowed to do so.

This is my fourth year judging. My judging is based on quality and accuracy. Students should be respectful and argue in a way that demonstrates this. I enter each debate with no opinion on the subject. It is up to you to convince me to side with your argument. 

These are the criteria that I typically judge:

clarity of case

clearly stated opening argument

use of facts and examples in the correct order - source then evidence

overall clarity of presented argument

crossfire - well constructed questions and answers

Extemp:

I competed in extemp for three years at Edina HS. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. Since then, I have coached MBA RR invites, NSDA, ETOC, UKTOC, and NCFL national finalists at Shrewsbury HS (MA) and Edina HS (MN), where I currently coach. I have also privately coached students in South Florida and South Texas and have some familiarity with those circuits.

I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good argument in only 30 seconds, etc.).

This is how I will rank you and your opponents, items rank-ordered:

1. Did you answer the question? If you answered the question, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important point for me as a judge. He or she who provides the best answer to his or her selected question will win the round. If you do not answer the question — giving a “how should” answer to a “will” question, for example – expect to earn a bad rank. I've watched NSDA and TOC finalists fail to answer the question and I did not hesitate to give them the 5.

2. Did you emphasize the arguments? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point may contradict that of another point)?

3. With what sources did you corroborate your arguments? Were your sources recent? High quality? Did you consider the key experts in the field?

4. How were the performative elements (delivery)? Did you exude confidence and use your voice and body to command the space? Did you offer a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or did you provide vocal variety? Did you have on-tops? Did they meaningfully contribute to the speech?

I care least about delivery because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. Just as people react differently to jokes, judges will find performative elements (humor/emotions) differently entertaining/funny/sad/etc. In my mind, a content focus is the only consistently fair judging paradigm for extemp.

When deciding between two or more high quality extemp speakers, I find that four things set speakers apart (not rank-ordered, all items matter to me):

1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers provide equally good speeches but one speaker answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker may earn a better rank (same logic as opp. averages as a tie breaker).

2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?

3. Framing the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?

4. Delivery/wit.

Debate:

Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.

I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.

I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.

For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.

For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.

For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.

Hello Debaters, I debated four years of public forum at Eagan High School in Minnesota. Now I'm a coach for Iowa City West High School. During my time debating, I was both of first and second speaker, but enjoyed being second the most.

I don't want a messy round, and you don't want me to have to find a winner once the round is over, so here is how I want rounds to go:

As a broad overview, I strongly believe that the heart of PF debate is a round in which a random person should be able to come off the street, judge, and be able to provide a decent explanation of who won and why. As a result of that, I will attempt to judge that style as much as I can. I want to see clear linkchains read throughout the round and explained counterargs to what the other team says. Taking the time to slow down and explain your args and how they impact the round overall will be a lot better then just card dumping and seeing what sticks.

Overall, lean closer to lay appeal than tech, and drive home the 2-3 key points you need to win. As for some other random stuff here's this:

Cross-Fire

I absolutely think cross-fire is the most undervalued and unappreciated part of the round. I love cross-fire. If you use it to good effect and carry it throughout the round, it could be a deciding factor for me.

Evidence

If key evidence is contested throughout the round or one of the teams ask that I review it, I may call to see it at the end of round.

If we are online, use kelleybrendanw@gmail.com for email chains: I'll only look at it if there is an issue post-round, but let's have someone set one up before round in case it's needed.

Flowing

I will flow whatever you say. Run whatever you want, and I will weigh it in round. One thing to note, I have never been able to flow sources well, so please don't just say the name of the card, remind me what the card or block says. If you are dropping an arg/contention/etc, clearly let me know so I know you are trying to make a strategic decision and not just forgetting about it. Don't try to drop a something to get out of a turn though, that's still offense for the other team.

Speed

If I catch it, I will flow it. One thing to note, I'm not that fast of a writer, so if you spread, I will not catch it.

Weighing

Like I mentioned above, I want to see clear linkchains. Ideally, you have a super logical linkchain that's flowed throughout the round. I'm far more likely to pick a clean linkchain with a small impact then a linkchain that requires a lot of steps to get to nuclear war.

Speaks

I'm sure you have heard it all before, so not much to say, only that cross will be the fastest way to gain or lose points on my watch.

Progressive Args

Like I said before, I will flow whatever you say. Be warned though that I don't like them and I have a super low bar that your opponents need to clear to beat it. The only thing I'm a lot more understanding for is in-round evidence issues or clear rule violations.

Random Stuff

If you are confused by what the other team is saying, assume I am also confused, so ask them about it.

Please do an off-time roadmap

I do plan on disclosing at the end of round

I am the worse with technology, so give me a second, then maybe one more :)

If we are online, and there is an issue with hearing your opponents, please speak up

Please time yourself

If you have any questions just ask. Good luck, have fun and make some good memories.

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

Currently a PF debater for Blake, I'll flow

Someone start an email chain before the round: my email is smohan22@blakeschool.org

****Will boost your speaks by 1 if you send out speech docs in the email chain******

General:

- Preflow before the round and give an off time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs

- Comparatives v important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more specific to west africa, more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal)

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to critical args than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)

- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- avg is 28

- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Add me to the email chain! csmoon.fj@gmail.com

I've debated the past 3 years in PF, both on the local (Minnesota) and national circuit.

TLDR: I do my best to judge as a flow, tech>truth judge. Debate is a game. Debate should be fun and educational.

**Keep in mind that I personally have not debated this crypto topic at all so I may not know all the technical ins and outs of crypto. However, I do have some knowledge from helping my team and have judged crypto rounds.

General PF Preferences

- Time yourselves

- I'm fine with brief offtime roadmaps.

- SIGNPOST!!!

- Warrant everything.

- Frontline in second rebuttal, especially turns. Defense isn't sticky.

- For summaries, I prefer a standard line-by-line analysis (to keep things as clean as possible on the flow), if you are able. I'm obviously more lenient towards novice teams.

- Weigh!!! Weigh as early as possible. And interact with the other team's weighing as well. Too often, people just say "we outweigh on __" and completely ignore the opponents' impacts or the opponents' own weighing analysis. Don't do that. Also, make sure to weigh not just your case impacts but also turns, important defense, etc. Overall, make my job easy for me and tell me how/where I should vote on the round.

- Please collapse. You can even do it as early as second rebuttal. This really makes it easier for me as a judge to evaluate the round and not have to handle up to six contentions by the end of the round (and it's easier for all the debaters too).

- Extensions: don't be blippy. You MUST extend the contention you are going for in the back half. Whatever you extend (contention, turns, defense, etc), make sure to extend the warrant and not just the card name, along with the implications/impacts. Don't extend through ink.

- Speed: I can handle a decent amount of speed. That being said I'm still human and going faster will start to make it harder for me. Clarity also tends to go down whenever you speed up. Please ensure that the quality of your speaking is still adequate if you choose to speed up. Also, DO NOT spread.

- Crossfire is not important in the round and won't be flowed. Bring up anything important that happened in a later speech.

- I don't care what you wear or where you debate (more applicable for online debate).

- I also don't care what type of arguments you run. As long as it isn't racist, sexist, etc I'm good with it. Just make sure it's clear and easy to understand.

- Progressive: I personally don't think that progressive args belong in PF. I don't have too much experience with them anyway, so it wouldn't be the best idea to run them in front of me.

Evidence

- I'm okay with well-warranted analytics.

- Please, please, please have all of your cards properly cut and organized so you can quickly bring them up if called. You should be able to provide a card within a minute of it being called.

- I am kinda okay with paraphrasing (non-paraphrased evidence will be stronger). That being said, you should not misrepresent or misconstrue any evidence. Depending on how important the card is in the context of the round, misconstrued evidence may be a voting factor for me.

- If you find that your opponents are engaging in evidence ethics violations, call them out.

- If you want me to look at a specific, contested card, tell me to do so.

Speaks

- Average speaks I award will probably be 28-29

- I like the occasional joke in a speech. Just don't be cringe lol.

- Making your speech rhyme/rap may or may not help your speaks. It still gotta flow and make sense tho, no freestyling.

- Speaks will be tanked if you are exceptionally rude, insulting, or offensive

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years (Blake '21)

email chain (blakedocs@googlegroups.com) - please put what the tournament, round number, and name of both teams

"tech>truth"

cards >>>>> paraphrasing -- all args need to have warrants

______________________________________________________

When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with the full cite (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence. You need to produce a card if your opponents ask for it. I do not like long evidence exchanges - you should already have the card cut and ready to be sent.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.

Weighing: The very best way to get my ballot is to weigh. There absolutely needs to be comparative analysis in round. The earlier weighing happens in the round the better. Weighing should always come earlier in the round than second final focus. If there is no weighing in the round or the weighing comes too late, you may not like the decision I make. Weighing gives you the best opportunity to influence the outcome of my ballot.

Arguments need a link, warrant, and impact.

In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.

I really do not have a lot of experience evaluating progressive argumentation. I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please explain the arguments fully and clearly. I will do my best to evaluate them. That being said, if you are reading a progressive arg you probably want to decrease the speed that you read and extend the arg.

Be accountable for timing your own speeches, crossfires, and prep time.

I can flow public forum speed.

no tricks

don't read new ev that directly contradicts your links to get out of turns

Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!

hey Ale

i debated PF for 4 years at eagan high school and graduated in 2020. I've been coaching for PF since then for wayzata high school.

***add me to the email chain! (email chain > doc) feel free to ask me questions before the round or to shoot me an email: shailja.p22@gmail.com

general:

- offtime road map: My biggest pet peeve is when you give me an offtime road map and then don't follow it. keep it short and really I just need to know where you are starting unless you are doing something weird.

- speed: i consider myself a flow judge. tech>truth. a case doc doesn't replace your speech. i can flow pretty fast but don't spread. naturally, the slower you go the more i comprehend. so do with that as you will.

- ks, theory, etc... : I a) i don't have enough experience with these kinds of arguments and thus don't feel comfortable evaluating them and b) think they create a barrier in the debate space.

- framework: this is pretty obvious - if a team gives me a framework I will vote off of that (as long as it makes sense) - if you have a FW and the other team doesn't that doesn't mean you win.

plz do not aggressively post-round me :) ask me questions but don't yell at me - i'm not going to switch my decision

how to win my vote:

- weighing: say the words " we outweigh because..." it makes it easier for me.

- signposting: just do it.

- voters: have them and write the ballot for me.

- evidence: evidence ethics have gotten so bad in debate these days. don't take forever to find evidence (speaks will go down). make sure you have cut cards. do not paraphrase.

- extensions: don't just extend through "ink". don't just say "flow Smith over". explain to me what smith says and why it matters in the context of the round. make sure if you say something final focus it is/actually was in summary and vice-versa. if you are the second speaking team you must respond to offense from 1st rebuttal. defense is not sticky. this is given, but if you want me to vote for it at the end of the round have it in every speech.

- overall, please have fun while still being nice and respectful. no one likes to watch an aggressive debate round.

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Hey, my name is Amareah Rolfzen I've been debating Public Forum for three years and I currently am a senior at Maple Grove. Please be respectful and time yourself!

Hi Everyone!

My name is Baanee Singh! I am the current Captain of Public Forum at Maple Grove Senior High. I have done Public Forum debate for three years with my partner. I have competed at MDTA twice and made it to octos. I have competed at Nat Quals two times and have qualified once.

Some guidelines for how I would like to see a round go:

-Please time yourselves and your opponents. I will stop flowing after the allotted amount of time for the speech so please try to maintain your time.

-I can flow pretty fast so don't worry about talking too fast, however, make sure your words are understandable.

-During all crosses for all speakers, do not talk over your opponents and do not cut them off. Steamrolling your opponents is not appreciated.

-In rebuttal, I would like to see a roadmap of your arguments so it makes it easier to flow. I would also like to hear card names and years.

-In summary, voters are something I look for. I want to know what to vote on and why. During the con summary, please do not bring up any new evidence or new arguments. Address anything your pro opponents have stated, but do not bring anything not stated already in the round.

-Final Focus should not have any new evidence and I will not count any new evidence brought up and will drop it from the flow.

I would like a clean round and please respect your opponents.

Thank you so much for reading!

Happy Debating :))))

-Taylor Swift and/or Chase Atlantic references = 30 speaks.

Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!

General:

- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing

- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)

- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- avg is 28

- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.

***[For Septober and Nocember 2022, I have no idea so I'm pretty much a lay judge for this topic lmao]***

Debated for 3 years on Minnesota and National Circuit for East Ridge High School.

Add me to the email chain if you want: andytshuajyang@gmail.com

TLDR: flow/flay judge, the Second rebuttal has to be frontline, signpost everything, I don’t evaluate cross unless you tell me to, Weigh impacts, please collapse, and I prefer line-by-line rebuttals and summaries.

Public Forum

General

• I consider myself a flow judge, but try to chill out because flow rounds tend to be super messy.
• Tech over truth.
• Speed: I don’t mind speed, however, if you are going to “spread” (try not to) please send a speech document in the email chain.
• I will time, however, I still want both teams to time themselves.
• Off-time roadmaps are fine.
• Try to use all the time in your speeches

Constructive

• Try not to go over time too much
• Make sure your case has a clear narrative
• Wacky and weird arguments are fine as long as the link chain is clear.

Rebuttal

• I prefer you don’t go back to your case if time permits, just weigh at that point or just end the speech.
• Second Rebuttal HAS TO FRONTLINE. It is essential that you rebuild your case.
• Front lines need impacts, treat like they are a contention!!
• PLEASE signpost

Summary

• I PREFER line-by-line summaries, however, I’m fine with voters
• Please collapse and condense the round
• Try not to extend in ink, that’s really messy and honestly a really bad habit
• Extend case and crucial defense
• WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS

Crossfire in general

• I won’t evaluate anything said in cross unless you bring it up in the next speech
• I love aggressive cx, but try to be respectful too.

Final Focus

• Try to follow the structure that was given in summary or else it becomes hard to flow on my end
• WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS
• If it wasn’t in summary, I will not consider it in FF

Evidence

• Don’t misconstrue evidence
• Call for cards if you want, but also send them to me if you do
• I usually won’t weigh evidence into the decision, but if it is critical to the round I will call for it

Other

• I’ll disclose if both teams want me to and if the people tabbing allow me to

• Progressive debate (K’s and Theory). Don’t run it for the sake of running it, unless it’s absolutely necessary to the integrity of the round. Additionally, I don’t know much about progressive debate. (Basically, don’t run it in front of me)
• For speaker points, just keep the round clean and I will usually default to 27-28 and 28-29 for the losing and winning team, unless you commit something super egregious or if you’re an amazing speaker.
• I’ll consider giving you and your partner 30s if you say a GOOD joke in your speech.
• For example:
• “Judge, my opponent’s case reminds me of my AP Calculus class, their case is full of jumps and discontinuities…”
• “Non-unique-turn-delink-mitigate my opponent’s first contention…”
• “My opponents mishandle our entire case like a baggage handler at the airport…”
• I will drop you if you say “Judge, this round boils down to”....jk
• If you made it this far, congrats??
• Anyways, have fun and good luck!!