I am a parent judge with experience in PF, LD, and Policy debate judging. I appreciate clearly identified and well supported contentions, roadmapping, speaking at an understandable pace, and respectful cross fire. I do not appreciate spreading. I like to flow while I'm judging a round. I prefer traditional debate to approaches like counter plans or progressive frameworks. I am a public policy professional in the field of natural resource policy. I write regulations and develop national policies as part of my every day job. Ultimately winning the day on a policy decision is not about overly complicating the issues, but about solving a problem with well supported evidence and facts that the public can understand and finds credible and defensible.

I am a lay judge. Please do not assume I know any debate jargon. Please explain all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please be on time for your tournament.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

I am primarily a speech judge who did theater in high school. I have judged some LD and PF. Please treat me as a lay judge. Avoid heavy use of jargon, and focus on clear logic and persuasion. Please speak at a comprehensible rate.

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches

I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.

I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
• Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
• I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
• Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
• I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!

Heyy, you've stumbled onto my paradigm..how awesome of you! My name is Jenna, my pronouns are she/her!

I currently have been in debate for 4 years. I attend JMU as a Junior Nursing Major in the Nursing Program. (1A/2N) Novice Districts Finalist, Champion of Wyoming, Texas Open 1st Speaker.

My email for the email chain: dukesdebate@gmail.com

Personal Email for questions(debate or non debate related): wrigh2jj@dukes.jmu.edu

If you would like more individual feedback or have questions about JMU or Debate, please email!!

If you read blocks at me without substance, LBL, or anything related to the in round debate, I am just going to look at you like this :| and be sad. #bringbacksubstancedebate

Debate is game with a very serious purpose: teaching critical thinking, argument and research skills, subject knowledge, and tactical and strategic perspectives. I will take your debate seriously. However, I am susceptible to laughing at funny debate silly goofy moments.

tl;dr

tech>truth

run whatever you want

will vote on 0 risk

speed is fine, emphasis important args.

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L and 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

I am more likely to vote for you if you have good, warranted impact calc, analysis, and comparison. I need to know why I have to vote for you with urgency.

Here are some main pointers that would be good to follow:

1. Clarity > Speed

There is no advantage or point in spreading if I can't understand anything you're saying. I'd much rather have clear and concise diction than slurred arguments. I am fine with spreading, but only if you can be understood by others.

2. CX

Open cross-examination is fine with me--its great to help each other out. However, I won't give you good speaks if you talk over your partner or don't let them answer questions.

3. Language

No sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. comments. Your speaks will be docked if there is offensive language within (or outside of) the debate round.

4. Kritiks

I love critical arguments; but do not assume I've heard of your K before. Fleshed out, well explained Ks make for a good debate round, as it is hard for me to vote for a K if it isn't explained well enough or if you don't understand the K yourself. I can tell when you're word vomiting, so just don't do it!! I need good link explanation and impact analysis.

5. Theory/FW

Please for the love of god do not read anything along the lines of "Kritiks are exclusionary and big words bad" I will not vote on it. This is the one clear exception I have to "run what you want to". It is not a convincing argument and often ends up being discriminatory, and you do not want to be in that position in front of me.

6. Prep

Prep time should end after the document is saved, and debaters will be expected to keep their own time. Do not steal prep time, and flow when the timer has started. Emphasis on keeping your own time, it's good to know where you are in the debate and it doesn't look good if I am forced to tell you to stop your speech.

7. Speaks

Things that will boost your speaks: flowing, good organizational skills, good cx questions, good technical skills and correct usage of debate lingo. +.5 points if you make me laugh in round.

Things that will lower your speaks: offensive language, rudeness towards teammates or opponents, stealing prep, hogging open cx, not interacting with your opponent's arguments, and cheating. Sexism, racism, antisemitism, queerphobia, and predjudice of any kind will not be accepted in a debate I'm judging and will result in sub-twenty speaker points, or the lowest the tournament will allow me to administer.

Hey kids who do 1ARs please don't drop on case args, defend on case with your life, you must win it to win the round :(

Hey kids who do 2ACs please do atleast line by line of the 1NC, esp if you have no cards.

Speed is not something I struggle with but if you are unclear, and I cannot flow your arguments, they won't be considered in my decision. Do not be overly loud, I have sensitivity to noise, ty!! <3