Hello, I am a parent judge in my 5th year of LD judging. My preferences:

1. Please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do not spread. If you speak faster than conversational, it is okay as long as you slow down at the important parts you want me to flow.

2. Make your argumentation the most important part with clear, concise points. Provide details, evidences and summarize in the end.

All in all be respectful and have fun while debating.

I am the aunt of a debater. This is my third time as a judge.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

Hello,

I am new in judging LD.

Keeping my LD experience in mind, my preferences are as follows:

1. Explain arguments to the best of your ability. As a parent judge, I most likely do not know the topic as well as LD debaters. Thus, I ask that you clearly identify the impact of each argument thoughtfully.

2. Please do not spread. I value clarity and proper pronunciation that will allow me to better understand the argument. If you happen to naturally speak fast, that is fine as long as you abide by the expectation of clarity. However, if you are making an essential point in your case, please slow down so that I can have the opportunity to fully grasp that key point.

3. Always provide specific details and piece of evidence. Conciseness is important for me when having to decide the round.

Most importantly, be respectful and have fun while debating!

Hi everyone! I'm Gabby (they/she), a senior in high school. I've been involved in debate for all four years of high school and have experience in both LD and PF. I am a student mentor at my school for LD novices and have been teaching for the past two years. In terms of judging, I've judged tournaments and mock rounds. I have judging preferences listed below.

LD judging preferences:

- Please try to signpost or give me a roadmap for your speeches. I want to spend time evaluating your arguments rather than trying to understand what section you're discussing.

- I can under varying speeds but spreading is not my preference. If you do spread, I will do my best to listen but will need a copy of your case so I can evaluate your arguments properly

- Please weigh and interact with your opponents weighing!!

- Make sure you extend your contentions/arguments/cards/etc.

- Keep your own time and prep time, though I'll keep a backup timer running

- I will flow so DO NOT try to come up with new arguments late in the round (after 1R)

- In terms of topic-specific jargon, I'm pretty in the loop when it comes to topics so I'll understand the jargon, however, it's always a good idea to give appropriate context for what you're talking about or referring to.

- You will lose speaker points for behaving rude, arrogant, and condescending. Debate rounds can become intense or passionate, but there should be no personal insults, talking over each other, or hostility. Any offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. arguments won't be tolerated and will result in an immediate loss.

Good luck to you all :))

coaching on the debatedrills club team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding mjp’s and conflicts.

use https://speechdrop.net/

tldr -

• disclosure is good.
• don't be offensive and arguments must have warrants to meet a threshold for evaluation. saying "no neg analytics, cuz of the 7-4, 6-3 time skew isn't sufficient" you need to justify why no neg analytics compensates for the time skew. won't vote on conceded claims.
• time yourselves.
• do impact calculus.
• be clear please

Greetings, I am a senior at LHS, I've debated LD for all 4 years here. Feel free to run any argument. Focus on being clear in speech and argumentation.

As for how I judge, nothing is off-limits, as of me judging while still attending, you're novices so you can run any argument as long as you understand it.

I don't have any biases but it should be known that I was primarily a K and tricks debater, most of the arguments being in relation to my black identity. This being stated I won't stretch the victory to someone who runs a K, especially if they don't understand their argument or if they lose the interaction. Tech > truth.

Send me the doc: 22Jalbert@lexingtonma.org

I flow cross-ex now :D

My name is Brogan Kirkpatrick (He/Him or They/Them). I debated for 4 years for West Des Moines Valley. Of that, I did Policy for 3 years and LD for a year in between.

Email: brogank42@gmail.com

In general: I see debate as a sport (as it should be qualified as). I'll try to minimize my involvement in a round, but I will step in if there's bigotry or extreme hostility going on. There's rhetorical strategy to being aggressive, but I'm substantially less willing to vote for you if you're being offensive. You WILL NOT get the ballot if you're intentionally offensive/dehumanizing to your opponent. Luckily for me as a judge, I've never had that happen, but it's there so we're clear if it does. I'm good with most spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'm familiar with most common strategies in debate. I was primarily a K debater, but I've also read framework, tricks (sorry), and a good nuke war impact or two. If you have any funky new strat that you're looking for the right judge to read in front of, I'd love the honors.

I'm about 50/50 on tech vs truth; I try to default to tech though.

Policy: This was the format I did the most. I'm well enough learned on all K debate but the highest of high theory. That being said, it's still a good idea to limit (or at least explain) your use of K-specific lingo. I've been out of debate for a couple years now and might not know what you mean. I'd like the framework debate to be clear and emphasized. You probably know the K debate better than me. As for more traditional, plan-based debate, it's great if the link chain is done well. Rarely is there anything more satisfying than being convinced that flying drones over bears will lead to a nuclear war. As for theory debaters, be unique about it. It's fine as a tool for clarifying abuses, but when you read the same shells almost every time, it's abusive and annoying. Even something as small as telling a little story about how this round was uniquely impacted by abuse is enough to make your theory args shine. Also, please don't tell me to gut check unless it's the ABSOLUTE LAST CASE SCENARIO. I hate voting on a gut check, and probably won't.

LD: Even though I mostly did policy, my primary aff was Kant. Most of my arguments were heavily inspired by LD-esque strategies. I'll vote on tricks in higher level debate, but don't like to in novice level. Spikes can be funny, but also annoying if that's your only strat. Ditto the info from above.

Send Speech Docs!!

Email: kodumuru@umich.edu

Hello I'm Arun Kodumuru, I'm a Sophomore at the University of Michigan and I debated for 4 years in LD at Lexington Highschool

General Things --

1) If you are unclear and as a result I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear 4 times before I hop on Tetris.

2) tech > truth

3) Don't be bigoted -- I forget which paradigm I got this from but: "don't use words, phrases or slurs outside of your social location," period. You can run arguments that may be on the edgy side but just make sure your opponent is comfortable.

4) I'm good with any speed just maybe go 90% of your normal speed if it's early in the morning.

5) Use good ev ethics -- I agree with Tej Gedela's stances on this

6) More time spent on weighing + explanation is always in your best interest

7) If you're circuit going against a trad debater to get high speaks you can still read your usual circuit strat, but just don't spread.

8) Don't spread if you're going against a traditional debater -- you will get low speaks

9) Debate is tough and if you're feeling down watch this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGOQfLFzJj8

Quick Pref Sheet --

Theory/T - 1

K (Identity) - 2

Phil - 2/3

Tricks - 3

K (High Theory) - 4/5

Policy - 5

Defaults: (These can be altered and changed very easily based on arguments made in the round)

Truth-Testing > Comparative Worlds

Competing Interps > Reasonability

Drop the debater > Drop the argument

No RVIs > RVIs

Presumption Affirms > Presumption Negates

Permissibility Negates > Permissibility Affirms

Layers from highest to lowest: Theory, T, ROB, ethical fwrk

Novice LD --

I will evaluate the debate based on the arguments made in the debate rather than ethos. However, ethos will determine speaker points. I would prefer that you do not spread if your opponent does not spread or read arguments that your opponent may not understand and cannot engage in (i.e theory or tricks). DO NOT read tricks in a novice debate, I will vote on them but you will get 25 speaks.

DO WEIGHING! Most novice debates come down to who weighs there impacts better so please do weighing. Debates without weighing make me sad and are often irresolvable. Clash with each others arguments as much as possible.

COLLAPSE! Don't go for every argument you read in the debate. If you read 3 contentions choose 1 to extend in the 1AR and 2AR and do lots of weighing for why that 1 contention comes first in the debate. You also don't need to extend every card in the aff - extend a few and compare your evidence to theirs.

How to get high speaks: Be respectful, Collapse, Weigh, Clash with your opponents arguments, Use CX strategically.

Varsity LD --

Tricks -- Sure but here are some caveats -- The warrant for an argument starts at 0 and then goes up, with that being said just make sure there's an actual justification for your tricky arguments. Be truthful during cross and I would appreciate it if you formatted your doc so that I could see each argument. Also the roadmap is super important with these debaters so please walk me through the order for each flow and whether I should flow a certain argument on a separate page.

-- If you have analytics pre-written in a constructive speech send it

T/Theory -- Yeah sure go for it. I every read shell from condo to glizzy theory throughout my career. I'll always be technical, but my threshold for reasonability also decreases with the frivolity of the shell. Structure your shell and make sure I know what I'm voting on. Make sure to do lots of framing and weighing for different impacts in the round so that I can judge the round off the flow.

-- Don't read disclosure against traditional debaters, I'll still vote on it, but your speaks won't be lookin too hot.

K -- K's are dope and I'm always open to them. In debate I primarily ran Mollow and Queerpess as my main K strategies, but I've taken classes on Nietzsche and looked into Berardi. I will say I am a lot more comfortable with the identity side of K debate but I'll evaluate your wacky K's as well. Don't spend five minutes on the overview about your theory, I would much more appreciate if you do the explanation along the line by line. Also framing is a huge part of these debates, just make sure I know what your model's orientation looks like.

-- If you're reading a reps K please proactively explain why I should drop the other debater/whatever your impact is -- "that's a voting issue" isn't a warrant.

K affs -- Read them, go for it, I don't care if you don't implement but explain your model of debate and why it deserves the ballot. That being said I will not evaluate call out arguments or arguments based on out of round violations other than disclosure. Lastly, an explanation for your method is super important -- I need to be able to repeat back to you what it is that the aff does in order for you to get the ballot.

Policy/LARP -- Yeah policy is dope, I just don't have the most experience with this style of debate

-- I live for impact turn debates! -- If you actually understand the turns that you're reading and give me a good explanation of them your speaks will be rewarded handsomely.

Phil -- Philosophy is a very interesting style and I advocate for it because of how specific it is to LD. That being said I understand most of my phil experience in debate was between Util, Kant and Hobbes with a little bit in Virtue Ethics and Hegel. Some of the more abstract philosophies that are read these days are a little harder for me to digest, but with a good explanation of the meta ethic and standard in a round I should be able to understand your argument. I also encourage debaters to cut substantive evidence for the syllogisms of their frameworks -- it just makes the argument a lot stronger.

-- Please enunciate more on your permissibility triggers and provide sufficient explanation for them. I'm not willing to pull the trigger for you for a 1 second trigger you made in the NC.

Hi! I did LD for four years when I was in high school, which was not too~ long ago (currently a college sophomore). I mostly competed locally (Alabama), but I've been to circuit tournaments and should know my progressive stuff.

Email: eileen6a@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before/after the round.

General

- Clash is very good. Please, please engage with your opponent's arguments

- Tell me why I should vote for you

Framework

- Be sure to explain what your framework is and how I should evaluate it

- Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it. Be sure to tell me why your opponent's framework is bad

Disads

- I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.

Ks

- I’m not familiar with a lot of K lit, but I think they're cool. If you run one, just explain it

Theory

- I really like Theory, and I will totally vote on it

- I also think Theory comes before Ks unless convinced otherwise. (It's not too hard to convince me)

Other

- I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.

- Please be nice to everyone

Good day, my name is Romas Moore and I am a fourth-year debater / second-year judge. I only have a few basic things to consider about the round besides what you make of it;

The Round

1. Be respectful to your opponent by thanking them for the round and being polite.

2. Please do not engage in any spreading nonsense. Speaking fast for the sake of speaking fast works to diminish the educational value of debate and offends the dignity of its seriousness.

3. If you and your opponent have frameworks that clash, make sure you afford yourself enough time on the framework debate so that you know how to best evaluate the round in the context of the debate. A traditional philosophy debate in the round is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged when appropriate.

4. I am a proponent of traditional debate which revolves around the issue at hand and operates within a realistic, convincing, and thorough argument (progressive debate, spreading, non-topical cases, etc... are much more likely to lose the debater the round).

5. I will consider observations made in cases during my deliberation on the round.

6. I will not flow cross-x, however, you should demonstrate the ability to defend your case during this time.

7. I will lower speaker points for arguments that do not take the round seriously (cases that argue pre-k education mandates will lead to nuclear war or other such link chains).

8. Please make sure you keep track of time. As the debaters, it is your responsibility to account for how much time is left in a speech or prep.

9. If you reference Edmund Burke correctly at any point while debating, I will give you an extra 1.5 speaker points. If you reference Hegel in an appropriately in your argument, I will give you max speaker points.

If you have any questions, please contact me at romasofstate@gmail.com.

Good Luck!

Email= Aavedonroy@gmail.com

Novice

Read your case and don't worry about the rest of the paradigm. Make sure to do weighing in your later speeches and collapse to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well.

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

Quick Prefs

I can’t understand spreading except off the doc be full warned

Identity K’s/Phil K’s - 1

Tricks -2

Phil-2

Lay 3-

Larp-4

Specifics

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

I went 1-5 at columbia, 1-6 camp tournament , 2-4 stanford and emory. I beat such amazing novices from newark, a Strake kid who wasn’t trying, and people not understanding my wiki. I also frequently posted on Debate Meme groups.

I can understand spreading but please send a speech doc. If you don't have a speech doc don't spread. If you don't want to send your opponent's analytics that's stupid but 100% send it to me.

I'm not a Phil debater so unless your reading Kant, util, objectivism, libertinism, Virtue ethics, Pragmatism, Deleuze,Hobbes, Negative Util, SV, Heidegger, Spinoza, Determinism, Tricks, Delibrative Democracy, Foucault, Alienation, Levinas, Agmben then I can't understand it so you might not want to read.

I'm a big fan of combining Phil and K debate combined.

Tech over truth ( except for ableism/accessibility) unless the round is clearly inaccessible ( like actually because someone is spreading and other people can't). If your opponent asks you to slow down then slow down.

If your arguments aren't warranted and your opponent drops it I will vote on it but if both sides aren't warranted then I will do weighing on my own.

I give novices an auto 29 if they run tricks. Like, on one hand, I love you for running tricks in novice year but at the same time, you should be learning the basics of LD.

Asking for a 30 gets you an 27 in speaks.

If you run a k/ theory please run it well. Most debaters don't really understand k which makes me sad so please try to make it coherent.

Theory: I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the argument (if it's coherent) unless contested.

You can run kaff in front of me if it's an identity k but if it's not an identity k I would prefer not.

my email is aavedonroy@gmail.com

If you want 30's- weigh, speak clearly, and warrant your argument.

If you have a disability I understand that speaks can be harsh so if you want to tell me ahead of time.

Don't vote off word pics unless it's clearly offensive. Ok I will vote on it if it's dropped but like stop acting words that clearly aren't offensive are.

Evidence Ethics is bad but I won't vote off middle paragraph, or brackets unless it's actually bad. I will weigh it as a theoryshell.

I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.

I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.

Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.

Please send your speech docs to kkufda2@optonline.net

I am a lay judge, don't read anything that can't be explained with ease.

I am not comfortable with anything too fast (i.e. don't spread, keep speeches conversational). Try to keep speeches to a point where I can take notes without feeling overwhelmed.

Please give clear voters!

I’m a former HS LD debater, current Junior in College. Preface: There's too much stuff to go over in text and I don't presume to have considered nearly enough scenarios, so you can ask as many questions as you want before round, I don't mind at all.

Prog Stuff:'

If either debater just straight up isn't comfortable with any progressive stuff then I would prefer it if we stayed away from it. If you still have to, then go ahead but I have to think your explanation is clear enough that the other debater could reasonably figure out a way to respond. Otherwise, I think it's abusive.

I'll pretty much evaluate any arg you want to bring to the table. But one thing to keep in mind when doing so is I haven't actively debated in 3 years so my ability to properly follow any new or niche args you bring is mostly dependent on whether or not I can understand your perspective. So basically don't throw a bunch of tech jargon that I haven't actively used in 3 years and expect it to stick.

I'm fine with K's, T-shells, CP's, basically anything but performance. Performance cause I don't think I can fairly evaluate it.

K's - the link has to be super clear and can't be tangential. I kind of subscribe to the idea that unless an analogy/link is close to a direct 1 for 1 then it's not tenable. Kind of like how technically almost anything can be an analogy to Christ or Hitler. If I think your K is abusive along those lines of too much extrapolation and your opponent calls you out for it, I'll probably weigh that heavily. So just gut check whether or not you think your K is actively relevant.

Tricks - Go for it, if the opponent is able to somewhat prove that it's abusive and you just respond with "nuh-uh people run it all the time" then I'm gonna dock you for it.

Speaking

If you spread without clearly enunciating, I will ask you to speak more clearly, slow down, and restart your speech. I'd prefer if it didn't get to that point, but if nothing changes - I'll just do my best and I'll evaluate what I can understand.

General stuff

60% Tech, 40% Truth - I vote Tech but I think truth is a valid argument and gut reasonability checks are fair if they are justified. I don't like the tech vs truth evidence credibility rabbit hole unless that becomes the entire debate. Most of the time I'll wash that and try to vote off other args.

I don't read philosophy anymore and I don't follow much of current debate standards, but I have a pretty heavy background.

I don't like hyper specific jargon in general because I think it just makes debate more inaccessible and doesn't translate into any useful skill. This doesn't mean don't use debate terms but if you bring up a philosophy term specific to your case then you better explain it - presume I've never heard of it because that's how I'll evaluate it.

You can postround me, but I'll dock your speaks if it fails. And by postrounding I mean if I completely missed an argument - not arguing against me. Keep in mind everyone thinks differently and has a totally different internal scale on every single decision. There is no universal correct ruling and every decision I make is ultimately based on my own internal scale. And you're probably not gonna change that. So postrounding is only reserved for if I just forgot about something.

Also if you just seem too rude or aggressive in round I'll dock your speaks. Debate should never feel intimidating or like bullying.

Good luck and have fun!

Info

Competed for Lexington HS from 2018-2022 in Lincoln Douglas.

My email is tonyyangt123@gmail.com for the email chain.

I've debated on the national and local circuit and qualified to the TOC 1x. I mostly read theory, phil, and policy arguments.

Novice

Read your case and don't worry about the rest of the paradigm. Make sure to do weighing in your later speeches and collapse to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well.

Quick Prefs

Theory/T - 1

Policy - 1/2

Phil - 1

Ks/K affs - 3/4

Tricks - 3/4

Specifics

Policy -

Everything is cool just make sure to do weighing especially in dense policy v policy rounds.

Theory -

I’ll use these defaults only if nothing else is presented in the round: No RVI, Competing Interps, DTD, Fairness, Education.

Read whatever shell you want. Go slower and be clear on analytics. Frivolous theory is fine.

Phil -

I'll probably be able to understand whatever you're reading but it's good to have a clear syllogism. Hijacks, meta-weighing, and permissibility triggers are great.

Ks/K affs -

I'll do my best to evaluate but I'm not very familiar with kritiks. I only read Lacan. I'll probably be better for Policy v K since I’m more familiar with it. K v K and K v Phil can get confusing so weighing and direct clash is good.

Tricks -

Debated against and read these a little bit. These debates can be hard to resolve so I think it's always good to do some uplayering with weighing, theory, a K, etc.. I won't vote on arguments I can't flow so go slow especially if you are extemping tricks.

Hi,

I'm Filip. I debated for Lexington Highschool for 4 years in LD.

I qualified for the NDCA in my Junior Year.

My Email is fvrancic@umass.edu, please add me to the chain.

If it is 5 minutes before the round and you are just checking my paradigm there is TLDR at the bottom.

I am more or less open to any arguments you want to make provided they are not racist, sexist, homophobic etc. If any of these arguments are made I will stop the round immediately and give the debater who made that argument/statement a zero and L.

If you are a novice you can skip the following section(up to the evidence ethics section):

That said, my primary experience with debate has been Phil/Policy/Theory. If you are reading some super deep K lit, etc, expect to have to explain it a little better than you would have to to other judges.

Experience(1=I have a lot of experience, 5=I have very limited/no understanding):

Phil - 1

Larp - 1

Theory - 1

Tricks - 2/3

K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

I default to the following layering: Theory>ROB>Framing/Substance

I default to the following paradigm issues: Drop the Debater, Competing interps, No RVIs

Try to avoid making me use my defaults, even if they align with what you are trying to do in the round.

Evidence Ethics

I will also auto drop for an evidence ethics violation(This cuts both ways, if you stake the round on a violation and are wrong I will give you a loss, feel free to make it an argument in round if you are not sure). If you cannot get through the entirety of a card, please say 'cut the card here'. Do not change dates on evidence, plagiarize, etc. I won't be super strict about it, so just don't be blatant, and if you messed up and your opponent asks in CX, tell the truth.

Other important stuff:

CX is binding, anything you say in CX is taken as truth in the round.

Do make arguments that are creative and unorthodox. I think creativity is a very undervalued skill in debate, and will reward it accordingly. I will be sympathetic to the fact that you are taking a risk, and the argument 'Don't vote off this, it doesn't have a card' wont fly. You can leverage the fact that carded evidence is more LIKELY to be correct though, and don't be afraid to do it.

Weigh. Tell me why a certain argument is more important than another one. Just saying that it is is not enough for me.

Finally, don't just extend the AC or NC through when your opponent made responses to the case, and then claim they didn't. I will not be very happy about that.

TLDR; Be reasonable, be creative, weigh, explain your arguments, and make sure both you and your opponent have a good time.