Ley judge. Keep spreading to a minimum, avoid IVI's, theory, etc. If I can't understand your argument, you won't get my ballot.

Clearly explain link chains and which impacts you are collapsing on.

Weigh clearly, help me see the impact your side presents.

Be respectful to your opponents, and enjoy the Debate.

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automatically lose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

I am a parent judge, you may send me cases @ taawr5@hotmail.com if possible before the round, this will benefit your speaks

I flow arguments to the best of my ability so my understanding of your arguments is critical to your success.

I am not a lay judge, here are some guidelines for success:

1) You can speak fast, but please be clear.

2) Just because I am a parent judge does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true, on all levels of responses not just your case. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time and add me to whatever the two teams decide, a google doc, or email chain, unless you are sharing the cards in person.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

Rebuttal

Be clear and be comparative

Stay away from dumping turns

WARRANT EVERYTHING

Second Rebuttal should frontline to further the round

Summary

Collapse hard and show me what you want me to vote on

If you are going to weigh, do not use jargon and make sure it is comparative

Do not be abusive and make new responses in second summary.

Final

Collapse even further, keep speed down

show me every step for why you deserve my ballot

No new responses that were not in Summary

BE COMPARATIVE