email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

background: debated ld in hs, now 1A/2N @UH

come to our debate camp! https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

top level:

Columbia update – prefer not to judge trad rounds, in open there’ no need to adapt to a lay/novice debater anything is fair game, ** extra speaks if you sit down early when you clearly winning **

tech>truth, if something is conceded then it’s true, but warrants still need to be extended

pet peeves:

- pdfs, google sheets, speechdrop

- counting down

- excessive flow clarification

- stealing prep

- splitting the 2nr

theory:

no such thing as friv theory read whatever you want, default c/I, dtd, no rvis

t:

i like these debates, impact weighing = good

plans:

good, higher threshold on 1AR/2AR extensions than most judges

cps:

equally good for cheaty cps and cp, good competition debate = higher speaks, judge kick unless told otherwise

da:

better than most judges for spin on politics DA, ok for intrinsicness debates

k affs:

been on both sides of the debate, probably slightly neg leaning on framework

ks:

dislike "you link you lose", rep ks, word piks, good for anything else

phil:

never read it in debate but familiar with kant, hobbes, levinas, hegel, etc in academic context

tricks:

err on over explanation, will be annoyed if long underview is read but not utilized well, meaning don’t make me flow your 11^th point on eval theory after the 1ar if you don’t extend it when conceded

LINCOLN DOUGLAS/PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional Judge or Philosophical

No spreading.

A Road Map is extremely helpful.

Fulfill the burdens.

POLICY

If Spreading you need to be clear or I will dock you for unfairness and not consider information that was mumbled.

Fulfill the burdens.

Prefer Probability over Magnitude cases. If it's highly improbable, most likely will lose (Here's looking at you, extinction cases)

K's need to be probable and backed with empirical data, assumptions in your K's will be negative towards your score. Analytical warrants are decent as initial Rebuttals but need to be empirically extended afterward.

Be creative if you can, but also be realistic...you're debating policies that are essential in real-world scenarios...not fictional universes.

Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

Email: aerinengelstad@gmail.com

Eagan '23, Emory '27

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Prefs shortcut:

1. Policy v Policy
2. Policy v K
3. Phil (Kant, ect.)
4. K v K
5. Weird phil, weird k's, theory
6. (strike) Tricks

Tech over truth obviously

I have a high threshold for a warrant. If you do not meet that threshold then it is not a complete argument and I will not vote on it.

I agree a lot with Archan Sen, look at his paradigm for more in-depth takes.

I default condo and judge kick. I do not vote on presumption, I vote on a risk of offense because I do not believe that no risk exists (outside of dropped arguments).

I won't evaluate out of round arguments/adhoms.

Policy: I lean towards these arguments. I read a lot of process cp's and policy arguments in high school so it is what I'm most comfortable with. I love disads and cps. Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more -- it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence. I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks.

T: Love these debates. Slow down on analytics/I need to be able to flow you. RVI's usually don't ever have a warrant, honestly wouldn't waste your breath on it. I tend to hate nebel T. I tend to think that plan text in a vaccum is true.

Impact turns: I love them. No personal qualms with spark or wipeout.

Theory: I'll evaluate it, but I hate frivolous theory and am very partial to vote against it. Default to competing interps.

K's + Kaffs: Didn't go for these as often in my career. High theory/pomo k's are not a winner in front of me because I don't know much about them and I am very persuaded by psychanalysis false for most identity-based critiques. Fairness is an impact and I think that it's a very good one, I tend to think that clash impacts in T-FWRK are less strategic.

Phil: I gave the Kant lecture at camp so I can judge and evaluate philosophical arguments. Dense phil and tricky phil are not a winner for me; see high threshold for an argument above, and I tend to get confused. Partial to util is truetil.

Tricks: see "threshold for a warrant" above.

Introduction

Name: Rishit Pradhan

Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com

School: Stockdale '23

Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)

I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.

Hey y'all. I am a college senior competing at Rice University in NPDA/NPTE debate. I have 8 years of debate experience, 4 of HS policy and 4 of NPDA/NPTE. While I am an experienced debater, I am still a new judge. In my attempt to limit judge intervention, below are beliefs that I have about debate from the perspective of a debater.

I believe that debate is a game that allows for all sorts of players to create, share, and debate advocacy. While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this does not allow for the denial of subjective experiential truth that each person comes into the round with.

In my belief that debate is a technical game, I try to give full reign to the debaters in the round to choose the strategy that they believe is the best to win the round; I will then try to evaluate the round using all arguments that are given by the debaters. Because this is the case, I ask that y'all make my job easy and tell me how to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in the vacuum of the round. That being said, I am not perfect and have my own presuppositions toward debate elements. Below are my thoughts on common topics. If you have any questions feel free to email me. maximusrenteria@gmail.com

Affirmative Case

I do not have a preference between topical and kritikal affs, but I do believe that there are right and wrong ways of running these arguments in the 1AC. So run what you want to run and run what you are comfortable running.

Topicality

Paraphrasing one of the best debaters and smartest people I know, topicality is the truest argument you will meet in the game of debate. Because of this, absent weighing I defer to topicality as the highest layer in the debate. Furthermore, I defer to Competing Interpretations over Reasonability. While I do defer to no RVI, a great teammate had almost convinced me that RVIs are a very special argument not to be overlooked. I also have not viewed OCIs to be a useful argument in the game of debate.

Kritiks

I believe there are 4 parts to a kritik. Framework, Link, Impact, Alternative. I personally believe that kritiks are research methods to be performed to evaluate the desirability of the 1AC but do not defer to this. I believe that Alternatives do provide Uniqueness for the Kritik Impacts, but Link Impacts can be independent of the alternative and kritik itself. Because I am not versed in the most critical literature, I believe it is useful for everyone to spend time to explain important parts of the arguments (this goes for all arguments in which I am not an expert). I do not have a preference between material and immaterial alternatives. I prefer DAs to the perm over link recontextualizations.

For reference, I have run Edelman, Spanos, Colonial Epistemology (revolving works by Achille Mbembe), Baudrillard, Althusser, SetCol, Lacan, Derrida and Cap (I do have a dislike for cap but do understand the strategic value so I do not defer against it).

CPs

I am not as well-versed in CP theory as I should be but I understand the value for and against specific CPs. I will listen to these theoretical objections or just arguments on the CP but please impact them out.

Of course, be competitive however you want to argue it.

Perm theory - I am down to listen to perm theory but again impact it out.

THEORY

I am aware that every circuit in every format of debate has their own sets of norms. However, I believe it is important that a debater is able to convince someone that there is value to these norms, geez I'm getting old (not really I just don't know all of the circuit norms anymore). I, too, have read many frivolous theoretical violations in my time.

I am down for spec. I am down for condo (although I have a deference toward the allowance of being condo in most cases). I am down for any theory interpretation you may have, but convince me.

EASIEST PATH TO THE BALLOT

impact out voting issues... give me a reason to put your name on the ballot if you read T read voters, if you read link turns read the impacts, if you read a CP explain the NB whether its external (DA or K) or internal (if it's internal this needs extra articulation), if something is dropped tell me why that matters

I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.

Pronouns: she/her

tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)

General:

Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.

Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.

LD Judging Preferences:

I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.

Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.

Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.

In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.

Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.

When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.

Voting Criteria: (for all events)

I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.

In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.

Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.

Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.

I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her).

lizziesu425@gmail.com for the chain/questions

TLDR: first year out, broke at TOC senior year, mostly read policy but dabbled in phil. will vote on any complete argument (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining something if you don’t think I’m familiar

Defaults/changed with a sentence: DTA, competing interps, no RVIs, permissibility negates, policy presumption

--no strong argumentative preferences but I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on "I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr." If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of "they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff" isn't going to cut it

--not great for phil v phil or k v k but walk me through it and we’ll probably be fine

--very good for cp competition stuff, politics, 0 off case, T (but not from a backfile), and util v phil

--fine for the k if you interact with the aff and do lots of judge instruction, but not if you like 6m of overviews, buzzwords, and K tricks with 0m of line by line

--I will intervene in the case of in-round safety concerns (misgendering, etc.)

--evaluate the debate after the 1AC and no aff/neg arguments are logically incoherent.

--2ars do not have to throw everything at the wall

--debaters should flow the round and take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs - in general, please try to minimize dead time!)

--will usually flow by ear and read ev later

--feel free to respectfully disagree with my decisions

Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. Will ignore 30 speaks theory.

--it has come to my attention that i was a speaks demon/goblin this past year, i'll try to be nicer.

Speaks will be docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.