---Bellarmine Rhetoric Policy Debate Tournament---

Focus on your story. Your story is more important than any individual line-by-line argument. Don't get lost in the weeds, look at the big picture.

Congress, extemp and impromptu at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I did policy for over a year and did both parli and pf for a couple tournaments.

For debate

I will flow all the arguments, but I need you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Impact out your arguments; otherwise, why should I care.

If you are rude, you will not win; debate is supposed to be fun, so don't make others hate it because of you.

You can spread but send me the doc. If your spreading you better be clear otherwise I won't flow it.

I like ethos inside of debate.

Bottom line - make whatever argument you want but impact out your arguments and be kind.

Congress

Congress has been my main event the past three years and I've reached sems at Nats, TOC, finaled at state

content: I want to see a very in-depth debate with quality sources. Don't falsify ev. Have clash don't give your speech in a vacuum.

delivery: Be respectful and have good rhetoric. I feel like using rhetoric is undervalued in congress but it's one of the most important aspects.

cross: ask good questions. Don't stall.

Treat me like I am a parent, I can follow along with any argument you want to make, just have a good explanation of your argument and why it matters because if I cant understand your argument then I cant vote for it, have some weighting as to why your argument means you should win the debate

Make sure to be kind to each other in round!

My views are aligned with Adarsh Nallapa's.

I vote based on impact framing, depth of analysis, and uniqueness. Be tangible.

rhetoric:

don't call me judge, call me andrew

debate how you were taught in rhetoric

hearing clear signposting will make me a happy judge

explain your arguments - my favorite debates will have concrete and multifaceted explanations of arguments, not surface-level statements about how your affirmative plan is great for poverty or why it's horrible for the economy

tell me how to make my decision - your rebuttal should guide me through every stock issue and explain why you have won those stock issues and why that means you win the debate. i want you to explicitly tell me a reason to vote for you. i'm a lazy person so if i have to figure that reason out myself, i'll be upset.

don't do sketchy things. i don't want to see any lying about what your opponent has said or making up things that are not based in evidence. spin is fine but lying is not.

please be nice to your opponents and everyone else in the room. if you are being mean, then i will be mean when grading.

brownie points if you reference kpop

have fun!

Dear Debaters,

To ensure a fair and productive debate, I'd like to share my judging philosophy and argumentative preferences:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I highly value clear communication. Please speak at a pace that allows for proper articulation and understanding.
   • Maintain a well-organized structure in your speeches. Signpost your arguments and provide clear transitions.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Strong arguments are the cornerstone of any debate. Focus on developing clear, well-researched content.
   • Provide solid evidence to support your claims. Quality trumps quantity - I'd rather hear a few well-supported arguments than a flood of weak ones.

3. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. Show why your case is stronger or provide effective rebuttals.
   • Don't just extend your own arguments; address the key points raised by your opponent.

4. Critical Thinking and Analysis:

   • I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and the arguments presented by your opponents.

5. Adaptability:

   • Be ready to adapt your strategy if needed. Flexibility in response to the flow of the debate is a sign of effective debating.

6. Evidence Quality:

   • Cite credible, relevant sources to bolster your arguments. I value well-researched positions supported by reputable evidence.

7. Strategic Use of Cross-Examination:

   • Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and gather information. Utilize it strategically to strengthen your case or expose weaknesses in your opponent's.

8. Impact and Weighing:

   • Clearly articulate the impacts of your arguments. Explain why they are more significant or relevant than those of your opponent.
   • Weigh the most important issues in the round. Tell me why your case should take precedence.

9. Time Management:

   • Allocate your time wisely. Ensure you have sufficient opportunity to present your points, engage in rebuttal, and conclude effectively.

10. Ethical Conduct:

    • Maintain a high level of ethical conduct throughout the round. Respect your opponents, the rules of the tournament, and the judging process.
    • Be mindful of the language and content you use. Avoid any form of discrimination, hate speech, or offensive remarks.

Remember, I'm here to evaluate your arguments based on their merits. I don't have any preconceived biases, and I'm open to being persuaded by well-reasoned and well-supported arguments.

Good luck, and let's have a great round!

Bellarmine '24, he/him

I'll flow. Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com.

Speed is fine.

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. Ideologically, I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion.

I don't care how well you can read blocks straight down. Line-by-line arguments, and respond to them in the order presented.

Tech > Truth. No argument is off limits, but don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.

CX is underutilized. Exploit concessions.

Judge instruction is paramount. Debates without comparative analysis explaining what arguments I should prioritize over others are difficult to resolve. Technical concessions matter, but explain why they implicate my ballot. Be concrete and comparative.

Case debate is a dying art. Doing it well - on either side - will be rewarded.

Email - benmanens@gmail.com - put me on the chain

Camp Tournament:

1) Don't change how you debate for me - this tournament is for you to learn, so I'll listen to anything you throw at me.

2) Be a good sport - this is a first varsity tournament for many, and the beginning of the end for many others. Make sure everyone learns and has a good time and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth - I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may affect the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only as long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

*From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe - intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn - am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks - afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate - I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity - on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Hey, my name is Anirudh (Ani) and I'm a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory. I've been doing speech and debate for around one and a half years now, so I'm somewhat experienced.

At the top, there are a couple of things I look for.

- One, all your evidence should be highlighted in pink.

- Two, winners win.

Now on to the more specific stuff.

Speech:

- I've been doing extemp for a while now, so I might know a little more about the topics than your average judge. That said, I also know at least the basics of other events such as Expos, OA, and OO.

- I'd like you to have a clear structure in your speech that makes it easy for me, the judge, to understand. I want to know what I'm writing down before I write it down.

- Make sure to project yourself with confidence. One, two, even ten mistakes is fine as long as you recover with confidence.

- Content matters; if doing extemp, make sure points are distinct from each other and that each point has at least 2 cites.

- Make sure to seem like you're enjoying yourself so it's engaging to the judge.

Policy:

I do policy debate, so I'm definitely most comfortable with that.

I will flow the debate to make sure that I have all the arguments; if I miss anything, I'm sorry, but please don't ask me to change my mind after I submitted the ballot.

I stress the affirmative team hitting all of the stock issues: topicality, harms, inherency, solvency, and the disadvantage. That said, I won't just vote neg if the neg wins one stock issue. I want the neg to win the stock issue and show why it matters more than the aff's harms. This means that framing the debate is extremely important to tell me how I should evaluate it. I will automatically vote neg if the neg wins on topicality since it is a fundamental rule of debate.

I'm not going to vote on how I perceive an argument, but rather how you argue it. For example, even if I believe that the Deterrence DA for the Death Penalty aff is false, I will still vote neg if the neg argues it better than the aff and why it matters more than the aff's harms.

Set up concessions in cross-ex. This is extremely important for me because CX is a great time for me to look on the debate and understand the main points of contention. Once you get the opponent to concede something in CX, bring it up in the next speech to show why it matters. This is a great way to gain credibility, but a lot of debaters forget CX even if they decimated the opponent. On the topic of CX, please be polite to the opponents. Do not insult them whatsoever, or speaker points will be docked. Please do not scoff like you're better than the opponent; that seems like ultimate arrogance. That said, I am all right with you bringing a little bit of passion into the CX if the opponent is deliberately avoiding your questions.

I think that the block should be split into different stock issues per speech. For example, if solvency is in the 2NC, DA should be in the 1NR, not solvency again.

Please define stock issues: I want to understand what they are and why they matter. It may seem repetitive, but every time you transition from one stock issue to the other, explain what each of them is.

During the rebuttals, especially the 2NR and 2AR, I think you should explain how you already won the debate in all of your previous speeches. These rebuttals should be a lot about looking back on the round, and explaining how you won and how your arguments matter more than the other teams.

Do not spread; I can flow it but I won't because it's not good practice for League tournaments. Also, please do not keep using jargon. Once again, I will probably understand it but I do not want you guys to say things like "impact outweighs" or "we win the framing contention" because that's a) not good practice for league and b) it's going to keep you guys in bad habits.

Please add me to the email chain. My email is ani.mani23@bcp.org I would prefer if the debate goes in a timely fashion, where the evidence blocks are ready to be sent on time. I will check the evidence if the debate comes down to the quality of evidence (which it probably won't) or if the evidence highlighting seems sus.

I will NOT tolerate any improper behavior, such as racist or gender-insensitive statements. This will be reported and your speaker points will not be fun to see.

Direct any further questions to the aforementioned email address.

At the end of the day, have fun. Whether you lose or win isn't the big thing; it's the experience you got out of debating.

LD:

I have tons of experience in LD (judged precisely one debate).

At the top of each of your speeches, specify what your value contention is, and list your main arguments as to why you have won on the value contentions.

In later speeches (e.g. the 1AR, please refer back to evidence read in previous speeches to support your argument). Please point out potential concessions the other team made and why they're so important.

CX is super important, so reference concessions gained from there into future speeches.

The last few speeches shouldn't be about making new arguments (which I won't count anyway), but rather explaining why you have won the debate by weighing your impacts on the value contention to theirs.

Extend your main arguments into the last speeches; don't extend everything you had in your first speech if you're clearly losing on the line-by-line. Pick your most important arguments and stick with them.

Don't do dumb stuff like demeaning your opponent or shouting in cross-ex.

The more prepared you seem, the better your speaks. You can appear more prepared by talking fluently and (maybe) taking less prep.

Enjoy!

The most important thing is to IMPACT OUT all of your arguments. Don't just tell me that a Federal Jobs Guarantee will be expensive. Explain to me WHY this argument should win you the debate and why it is more important than the Aff's claims. By the rebuttal speeches, tell me what arguments you are winning, why they are the most important arguments in the debate, and why that means you have won.

The next most important thing is to EXPLAIN your arguments. Do not just read a card and move on. Explain to me the implications of the evidence, and why it's relevant to the debate.

Delivery obviously matters, but I tend to place greater importance on well-prepared strategies, and thorough analysis/explanation.

If I'm nodding my head, your argument makes sense and you're explaining it well. If I'm squinting my eyes or shaking my head, I am confused by your argument/not following. Make of this what you will.

My views are aligned with Neal Dwivedula - just ask whatever questions you have in the round, I've debated policy for a few years and have some experience judging novice policy and LD.

About Me: My name is Anthony Reynolds, I am a Junior at Bellarmine College Preparatory, I do both slow and fast Policy Debate at the Varsity level, and I also do Extemp at the Varsity level. Pronouns: He/Him.

Email: Anthony.Reynolds22@bcp.org

If it is a fast debate I want to be on the email chain, if it is slow debate please also put me on the email chain.

Voting Issues:

The K:

This is what most people care about so I am starting with it. I am mostly a Policy only debater but I am completely open to Ks and K affs. I will not favor them, but I do not see them as dirty or bad forms of debate. Arguing that Topicality is bad is interesting and I like it. I respect K debaters and think they are equal to Policy only teams.

Framework:

Fairness is not always a voting issue. You can argue that it is, and that it isn't. I do not have a strong opinion on it. Anything can be a voting issue for me, and it all depends on how you argue it. I go for framework often but that doesn't mean I am against K affs.

Theory:

I think that theory debates are just like every other part of debate and are just as important. I am open to judging theory debates, but there are some theory arguments that I personally don't like, but that does not mean I will auto downvote them. These are:

- Disclosure theory: I just think disclosing isn't a rule or necessary.

- CP Theory: I think PICs are bad, but I will still vote for them. Even though I am against PICs I still see them as a legitimate argument.

Overall I think that there are no hard and fast rules in a debate, so anything can be said. This means I am open to a neg team reading 12 counterplans and if the aff loses on condo then they lose on condo. Similarly, if a neg team reads 1 counterplan and the aff wins on condo, they win the debate. Everything in the debate is about the arguments and theory is just another argument to me.

Topicality:

I will usually be neg leaning on Topicality, and it is all about articulating your argument. If you are running an aff that is obviously not Topical but you win the argument I will still vote for you. I still think that Topicality is another argument to be had and I can go either way.

Tech over Truth:

I think that if you win an argument, even if what you are saying is false, you still win the debate. Responding to arguments and having clash always comes first, and even if an argument is false you must respond to it. That being said, an argument being false makes it a lot harder to win simply because the other team can literally say "what they are saying is a lie and will have no impact because of it" and well if you are lying then yeah there isn't an impact at all.

You could run a counterplan that is in reference to a country that does not exist and if you definitively win the argument then you could still win the debate.

Framing vs Line-by-line:

Both are necessary to win a debate in my opinion. I can go both ways on which is more important. If an aff team loses a bunch of arguments on the flow but can prove to me through framing that they should still win because the aff impacts outweigh, then I might vote for them. I can also go the other way, and completely vote on line-by-line depending on the debate, but it is completely based on how either team articulates their arguments.

Other Issues:

Please just be respectful to your opponents. Racism, homophobia, sexism, and any other kind of hate speech will not be tolerated.

I am open to most arguments if I think they are legitimate. However, I think something like using the wrong pronoun once in a speech is not a reason to reject the team, but you can still argue that it is and I might vote for you. Also, swearing during a debate is fine by me, as long as it is not blatantly offensive to the opponent or to another group of people.

Also, if you claim the opponent is forging evidence or is violating some form of real rule of evidence, make the argument in the debate, and if you convince me I will vote on it.

I am pretty loose with prep time. Flashing is not prep, sending files is not prep, if your computer crashes during a speech just pause and figure it out, and for the most part I will be pretty flexible. Stealing prep will obviously not be accepted and will affect your speaks, and possibly the ballot in extreme cases.

Most of that section was for fast debate.

Slow Debate:

This is a lot more simple so I will be brief.

Both framing and line by line are important in a debate. Just because I have fast debate experience does not mean I only value line by line and argumentation, slow debate framing is a huge part of the debate and it should be in your speeches.

A lot of convincing parent judges in slow debate involves being convincing and believable, so I will likely take this into account during the round. Of course the argumentation is the most important part of the debate, but if I think the round is a wash with both sides having equally good argumentation, I will likely go with the side that simply persuaded me more with their delivery or phrasing or something else that isn't purely a part of argumentation. Despite this, I wil value the argumentation higher.

Speaker Points:

How good did you speak. Did you speak well? Yes? What do you know now you have high speaks. Did you speak poorly? Aw man now you have lower speaks.

Paradigm for Rhetoric Debate Tournament

Tech > truth

I want warrants for everything - don't just say x evidence says this, that's why it's true. Explain to me WHY it's true.

I love cross-examinations that are subtle but set up the other team in a double bind that they can't get out of.

I will vote on Topicality, but I don't enjoy those debates. The best and most interesting debates interact with the core of the affirmative's advocacy.

Paradigm for Bellarmine Congress Classic:

I evaluate congress mostly on content, but good delivery and showcasing your personality through your delivery style will get you higher ranks. Confidence is always key and will get you much farther than solely relying on brilliant argumentation. I especially value strong rhetoric and persuasion, so the better rhetoric you have, the better you will do.

I'm usually tech > truth and I don't assume links in your speech, so make sure to explicitly warrant everything with relevant evidence and analysis - If there is absolutely no weighing being done in terms of relative arguments, my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.

Never fake your cites - there's always evidence you can find that backs up what you're saying. Trust me I would know.

Every time you stand up for cross-ex, you need to have a clear gameplan and intention to extract some sort of concession - even clarification questions should be strategic. Good CXes will boost your ranks

Make sure you know the role of your speech in the context of your round - e.g. don't give a constructive as a crystal or pre-empt a million different arguments in the authorship (few is fine)

I value strong logic behind refutations and really enjoy creative ways of linking to arguments that make you stand out. Also, condensing down and simplifying the debate as you get later in the round, especially in late mid-round speeches and crystals, will get you higher ranks.

The most important aspect of congress is in-round adaptability - that means never breaking cycle and always being ready to flip. If you're using canned speeches without listening to what other speakers are saying, you will do worse.

My views are aligned with Benjamin Manens

I will judge the round however the debaters say the round should be judged (within reason), but in the absence of any debate over framing of how the round should be judged, I'll side with whether I think the aff is a good idea within a utilitarian framework, and less on stock issues.

If there's no response to an argument in the debate I'll probably believe it, unless it's truly ridiculous or just out of line with reality. On an argument level, I'll prefer the side with better evidence over better logic, but if you can prove your point well with reasoning alone I am open to believing a claim that doesn't have hard evidence.

If you and the other team are both making arguments with evidence that directly contradict each other, please explain why your evidence and logic are better than theirs.

If you're going to assert that a single argument is enough to win a stock issue, or that you should win the debate because you won a certain stock issue, give a good explanation as to why, and don't just tell me I "have to vote aff" or anything like that without an explanation.

Be nice in cross ex, ask questions (don't just make arguments at your opponent).

good luck have fun

don't worry

General: In this hallowed arena of intellectual pursuit, I stand as both witness and arbiter, enraptured by the kaleidoscope of ideas that unfold before me. My temperament is one of open-minded curiosity, eager to be captivated by the rhetorical virtuosity of debaters. As we embark on this journey, let it be known that my canvas is vast, and my appreciation for the artistry of debate knows no bounds. The tapestry of our discourse, whether woven in the classical loom of policy arguments or painted with the avant-garde strokes of non-traditional paradigms, shall find a receptive audience in the chambers of my discerning consideration.

Philosophical Orientation: In the grand tapestry of dialectic elegance, my predilections sway towards the classical dance of well-versed policy arguments, a ballet of intellectual finesse. Yet, amidst the splendor of tradition, I am not impervious to the allure of the unconventional—a delicate sonnet that, when articulated with finesse, unfurls its petals in the garden of discourse.

Argumentation Preferences: As we embark on this rhetorical voyage, I implore debaters to cultivate their arguments like the most exquisite blooms in a celestial garden, each petal a testament to meticulous research and thoughtful construction. Quality, akin to the fragrance of rare blossoms, should linger in the air, transcending the mere quantity of argumentative foliage.

Speed and Clarity: In the ethereal dance of rhetoric, let our words be imbued with the grace of balletic movement, deliberate and enchanting. A crystal-clear stream of eloquence should meander through the hallowed groves of discourse, allowing the jewels of your ideas to shimmer without being lost in the turbulent currents of undue haste.

Framework and Impact Analysis: Construct for me an intellectual coliseum, the very stones of your framework hewn with precision. The impact analysis, a symphony of logical crescendos, should resonate through the vast amphitheater of reason, leaving an indelible mark upon the tapestry of my adjudication.

Role of the Ballot: Behold the ballot as a sacred relic, entrusted to the virtuoso whose arguments, like the most intricately woven tapestries, seamlessly integrate into the established framework. Persuade me that your narrative is a magnum opus, and I shall, with the quill of discernment, inscribe your triumph in the annals of intellectual history.

Flexibility and Adaptability: As we traverse the intellectual cosmos, be attuned to the muse of adaptability guiding our celestial journey. Surprise me with constellations of arguments, each a celestial brushstroke across the canvas of resolution, ensuring they coalesce into a harmonious constellation.

Decision-Making Criteria: In the atelier of debate, I shall sculpt my judgment with the precision of a master craftsman fashioning a grand opus. Let clarity be the luminescent palette illuminating your discourse, relevance the vivacious hues infusing vitality, and impactful evidence the iridescent brushstrokes that lend your argument a shimmering brilliance.

Experience and Background: With the mantle of experience draped across my shoulders, I wander the landscapes of debate as a seasoned wanderer. Yet, consider me not an omniscient sage, but a fellow traveler eager to be enraptured by the cadence of your discourse. Illuminate the trail with clarity, and I shall navigate its convolutions with discerning wonder.

Questions and Clarifications: Before the overture of our intellectual opera unfolds, seek enlightenment through queries. I am but a custodian of the labyrinth of expectations, ready to unravel its mysteries for the intrepid seeker.

May our discourse be a symphony of ideas, each note a resplendent crescendo echoing through the vast halls of intellectual pursuit.