Debate:

If I don't understand an argument, I won't vote for it.

Speech:

Speak clearly and enunciate.

TL;DR: I did traditional LD debate for 4 years but treat me like a lay judge.

I probably won't understand most circuit tactics (Theory, K's, etc.) and will drop you if you run it against an opponent that doesn't know how to debate that way. I'll take dropped arguments as true. If you'd like, add me to the email chain (raymond.l.dai@gmail.com)

LD: Connect your arguments back to framework, or I will be unable to vote for it if I do not understand why your point upholds your value/value criterion and why you should win. Make warrants, weigh arguments, and clearly articulate impacts too.

Everything else: I have a little bit of experience but I'm basically a parent judge here.

Don't be mean to your opponents and be careful when treading the line between pressing opponents and being rude during cross-examination thanks

hi, I do parli with Ryan. I don't like it when people are too aggressive or speak way too fast. Also please have introductions before your speeches. I prefer if u don't run theory because I don't really know about it but your choice. POI's and questions are good but don't be rude and ask too many. make sure you organize your case well and uh just think of me as a lay judge, I'm not sure what else to include here so ye gl hf!

Leland '23

Michigan ‘27

they/them

Chain: ngaodebate@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, read whatever you want. My opinions on debate are still very malleable and good debating comes prior to anything I believe outside of round.

Little topic knowledge – I’ve looked at a few chains and camp files but you should assume I know nothing.

I will not adjudicate debates over issues that occurred outside of the round.

Policy v Policy

Send perm texts.

You should slow down in competition rounds. My experience here isn’t the best and my comprehension will not be fantastic. No real other preferences for which CPs are legitimate.

I have a horrible understanding of legal processes and the economy.

Policy v K

Fine with whatever lit base you read so long as you explain it.

I think most Ks (and AFF framework arguments) are better executed with exclusive framework interps. I will only vote for interps made by either team.

K AFFs

Like above, I think exclusive framework arguments are often more strategic than counterinterps.

Fairness is an impact but you need the impact explanation to accompany it.

You should explain why the TVA and SSD solve beyond just saying that it solves.

KvK – do ballot instruction and please defend something. I think AFFs get perms but I think strong links can generate a sufficient opportunity cost.

T/Theory

You should probably have a caselist.

Condo is probably good and probably also the only reason to reject the team.

Like with competition, you should probably slow down.

Hello, fellow debater:

I have been competing in LD for three years, and I also did Congress in freshman year, so I am relatively familiar with debate structure.

I will flow your arguments, but please signpost, and summarize your arguments at the end of the debate so I can keep track.

Do not spread, or I will not flow your argument. My handwriting is already bad enough as it is (':

Finally, just don't be mean, because that's very uncool.

Anyway, I hope to see you in round!

--Shane King

.--. . .-. | .- ... .--. . .-. .- | .- -.. | .- ... - .-. .-

Any mention against cheese automatically L30s. Any mention for cheese automatic win of the round (W30s).

If you condemn cheese or do not mention, L 20's. Say at some point why cheese is the greatest invention ever W 30's. If both teams mention how amazing cheese is, the team that comes up with more pros uses more creativity, and further indulging examples wins the round.

I am a 10th grader at Leland High school and have been doing speech and debate since I was in fourth grade. I like to play chess in my free time and will consider adding speaker points if you make good chess references in your speech.

Don't panic, this is most likely your first tournament, and you will do well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon." -Yongjin Lee.

Leland '22 Michigan '26

conner.shih.debate@gmail.com

Judging should be all tech, no truth. The only thing that factors into my decision is what has been said by the debaters. That means 'I don't care what arguments you go for or how many off you read in the 1NC.'

K in high school, policy in college. That just means do the better debating and you will win.

You can insert rehighlightings as long as its implication is explained. Recuttings of parts of the article not originally present in the card should be read.

I will not vote on events that occurred outside of the round or personal callouts.

Condo is good. Judgekick is good. Plan text in a vacuum is good.

Fairness is good. It is an independent impact. Unless it's not.

Big fan of the perm double bind. Not a fan of Kant.

Link uniqueness is important. You should read cards.

I am currently a varsity public forum debater, but I have some experience in lincoln douglas.

Pf

- You may go as fast as you want with your speeches, but remember anything I do not catch will not be counted in the round.

- Do not run theory or values in the round I will solely be judging by the arguments given that are related to the topic.

- I do not flow but value cross exes. Be sure to be polite and let each other take questions.

- Make sure to extend your points in summary, and do not bring up new arguments in final focus.

Ld

- You may go as fast as you want with your speeches, but remember anything I do not catch will not be counted in the round.

- I will judge off your value and arguments be sure to weigh and tell me why you better fulfill your value criterion.

- I value cross's and will take it into account when judging the round.

- I will not be voting off counter plans unless the negation proves that it happens in the status quo.

Pronouns: he/him

Speed: an understandable pace, please

Do not read procedural theory or Kritiks unless absolutely needed.

I enjoy clash and emphasizing warrants.

I have debated Policy for 4 years in high school

Email: sandalfoot101@gmail.com