about me

parli & congress

she/her

debate:

- asking excessive and unimportant questions shows you are trying to waste time, I will not view you as being more proactive if you ask unnecessary questions

- weigh out your impacts, but do so in a manner that weighs your impacts over your opponents; don't just explain why your ideas are important, I want to hear why they are more important than the opposition

- give trigger warnings if need be and ask if everyone is comfortable to proceed

- try not to laugh at opponents or partner

- you should be firm with your points but you should never be aggressive

- I'm not a fan of spreading, I am fine with fast-talking as long as I can make out what you are saying

- utilize signposting

- I'm generally not educated on theories and would not know the right procedure if one were to be brought up, so I suggest avoiding that

- if I am judging an event I'm not familiar with, please walk me through any of the debate jargon you plan to use

can't wait to see everyone perform :D

As a Public Forum (PF) debater, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made by both teams and determine which side presented the most convincing case. In order to help me make an informed decision, I expect debaters to adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Clarity: Debaters should speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that all arguments can be heard and understood. Debaters who mumble, speak too quickly, or are difficult to understand will be at a disadvantage.

2. Organization: Debaters should structure their arguments in a logical and coherent manner. Each argument should have a clear thesis statement and be supported by evidence and reasoning. Debaters who are disorganized or fail to make clear arguments will struggle to persuade me.

3. Evidence: Debaters should support their arguments with evidence from credible sources. Debaters who use unreliable or biased sources will be at a disadvantage.

4. Rebuttal: Debaters should address their opponents' arguments directly and provide effective rebuttals. Debaters who fail to address their opponents' arguments or who simply restate their own arguments without addressing their opponents' points will be at a disadvantage.

5. Clashing: Debaters should engage in productive clash with their opponents. This means responding to arguments made by the other team and directly challenging their opponents' claims. Debaters who fail to engage in productive clash will be at a disadvantage.

6. Ethics: Debaters should adhere to the highest ethical standards. This means avoiding personal attacks, being respectful of their opponents, and representing their arguments fairly. Debaters who engage in unethical behavior will be penalized.

By following these guidelines, debaters can help me evaluate their arguments effectively and make an informed decision. I will be looking for the team that presents the most persuasive case and supports their arguments with the best evidence and reasoning.

if you want to win just be better

I am a LD debater my self. I will flow the round and all the arguments, with the exception of cross X.

-If your opponent conceded a point in cross x than it's up to you to remind me/bring it up.

- I don't care about your speaking as long as I can make out what you are saying, I am fine with fast but if you are unclear I will yell clear and you will have to slow it down.

-Don't expect me to determine which side has the most weighted, you should tell me why your side outweighs the other through your warrants/blocks aka.) evidence.

-Counter plans are always ok!

-If a contention is non unique please explain why it would be the same in both worlds.

-My pet peeve is don't misinterpret your opponents arguments, and if they respond to your argument DON'T SAY IT WAS A UNSUBSTANTIAL RESPONCE.

-Don't forget framework in the debate either collapse the frameworks or state why your framework would be better in your world.

- Burden of proof is constantly on side that changes the status quo, so explain to me why tour side has more benefits then the status quo. If the burden of proof is on you don't just simply state (here are the problems x, y and z) state how you will fix those problems. likewise for the status quo just state why we should stay with in the status quo and why changing to opposing world is bad.

-Anther pet peeve I have when judging is don't get into a petty evidence battle unless if your opponent misinterprets or fabricates the evedince. A example of petty evidence battle would be is, "my source is more reliable because he has won awards in reporting for x, y and z.

- I can always give a verbal RFD and disclose the results of the round after the debate.

The side I RFD for would have

1.)( Impacts) connecting it back to the framework of the debate and why your side provides the most bet benefits

2.)(Flow) Contentions carried through the flow without dropping a point

3.)Best responce to opposing case aka aka rebuttals.

=Remember at the end of the day you are trying to convince me the judge=)

Senior at Leland high school

Policy debater for 4 years ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)

im fine with any argument, but I'm not really caught up with the k literature. high theory might be iffy too but ill try my best

tech>truth

extend evidence and do impact calc

if u don't, you'll probably lose the round unless the other team does even worse on extensions and impacts

take advantage of crossx time, IMO its one of the most important "speeches"

education good

make sure to state your burden and your opponent's burden of proof(and why I should prefer your bop if there is a difference)

I vote neg on presumption

oh yea, i like hearing about T, but if you run T wrong, it'll really hurt you

I default to competing interps on T

weigh impacts, write my ballot, all that fun stuff.

don't be mean, no racist, rude, hateful, etc. comments

pronouns: he/him

i like funny stuff so funny stuff can give you speaks

creative intros are cool too

spreading is okay, ill say clear if you are too speedy

if I find out your evidence is made up, fake, or racist/clearly biased you'll lose on that argument(and possibly others since decreased cred)

even if its clearly a joke, if you say anything to the other team regarding self-harm its an automatic loss

being toxic wont help u

have fun

former policy debater:

• Ks and theories allowed but I did NOT do a lot of work in that area. If you do bring it up, you will still have to explain thoroughly.
• if the tournament gears toward lay debate, keep the pace slow! 
• I have not done full research into this year's topic. Don't assume what background knowledge I have. 

If I am judging you for LD or PF:

• I have judged LD and PF a few times. However, I have not ever participated in the events/have an in-depth knowledge of these debates.

I will give more information on my background/what I judge for if further questions are asked. 

Overall!

• just don't be rude. keep it a fair debate.

email: kaylynchoilee@gmail.com

I do Lincoln Douglas debate as my main event at Leland High School, and Original Oratory as my second event. I have also done Congress in the past. (she/her)

Speech and debate is a great activity and something that I am passionate about, so I hope you can also take away knowledge and public speaking skills, regardless of results! Please be a respectful and supportive competitor, I will take note of any abusive or rude behavior in round.

Speech:

Good speaking speed, with a consistent and appropriate volume, please project your voice!

Speech content that makes sense and is well structured

Anything that is unique and can help me learn something new

Let me know at the start of the round if you would like time signals, and for what times/how often

Natural walking/pacing and gestures, but depends on event of course

Debate:

General:

Spreading is okay, but don't go too fast.

More clash is more interesting.

Cross X or crossfire with a deeper purpose, try asking questions that can connect well to your rebuttal.

Strong and logical arguments and impacts.

All cards should be cut properly, no tricks, etc.

Try to analyze arguments for logical rebuttals with your evidence.

No abusive arguments or burdens/observations if applicable.

Well-organized rebuttals and good weighing are appreciated.

Other:

Theory/Shells are not preferred (unless calling out abuse in round), as I am not as familiar with this kind of argumentation, though do explain everything well if you choose to run them.

Kritiks are okay, though explain the reason for using and why it is better/more necessary than clash specific to this topic.

Let me know if you have any questions! Good luck!

Treat me like a parent judge for any event other than policy; I have no idea what your event is and how to judge it. Thus, judge instruction, especially in the rebuttals for debate ("write my ballot for me") + clear & articulate speaking & presentational skills (for any event) will be key to obtaining the W from me as your judge

For policy---Circuit or lay debate is fine with me

Lay: Speak clearly, use gestures, and maintain eye contact. Also, cx is very important for me when judging lay debates. Rebuttal speeches should have a lot of judge instructions and "simplification of arguments" so there is a clear stock issue / argument to vote off.

Circuit: Any arguments, policy or kritikal are ok, though I prefer judging Policy OFF debates. I am also not very familiar with K-AFF & k v k debates and I definitely dislike tricks / troll arguments (unless its a troll round lol). Again, rebuttal speeches should boil down to one or 2 OFF for the neg / one or 2 scenarios for the aff, with impact calc, highlighting concessions, and summarizing arguments.

This goes for all events---Do not be disrespectful or condescending towards any of your opponents (that includes but not limited to misogynistic, homophobic, racist, demeaning behavior). Any such behavior will merit a vote for the opposing side.

lay judge.

dont know anything about theory

30 speaks if you roast your partner creatively

if you run theory im voting against you unless the other team is mean, rude, or is any -ist.

tabula rasa but tech>truth

Pf at Leland High School with Sterling Xie.

Basic things:

-Preflow before round, do NOT be like Sterling.

-No progressive arguments unless there's a major violation(i.e. -isms).

-I flow so speaking fast is ok unless you start spreading then I'll start missing points.

-Don't extend through ink, I won't evaluate any argument that is brought up in final focus unless it's in summary.

-Only arguments that are extended through final focus will be evaluated.

-If you drop something, it is considered dropped.

Cross:

-Most important thing: do not be mean or abusive

-if you concede something during cross then it is considered dropped

Speech:

-Please, please, please weigh! Don't just say something like "We outweigh cuz our impact is bigger than theirs", add warranting.

Let sterling be your example: if you don't weigh, you drop your outround.

-I really don't want to time y'all so you guys should time yourself and each other; the grace period is 10 seconds.

-Feel free to run any kinds of argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc.

-My average speaks are 28.7, and if you're funny/a good speaker, 29 or above.

Evidence:

-Paraphrasing is ok as long as you're not misconstruing evidence real hard and/or basically making things up.

-Tell me to call for cards if there are specific ones you want me to see.

-Cut all your cards fully, DO NOT just give me a link(like what Sterling always do); I will be very very annoyed.

Have fun!

I do PF, am kind of a mid debater

any argument is fine, just make sure you read any trigger warnings if necessary.

Being clear and enunciating well is better than spreading.

Implicating responses, giving warrants, and sign-posting are all good. Also, please interact with frontlines/responses instead of just repeating yourself.

Extend your links and impacts in summary. I will not evaluate new stuff from 2nd summary and onwards,

Remember to do weighing.

1st summary must frontline

Defense is sticky. Meaning, if a team gives a response to another team, and that other team never frontlines or gives another response back, the team that gave the first response doesn't have to repeat their original response in later speeches, it "sticks" to the argument. That being said, this doesn't apply if the other team did give a response. In that case, provide some new analysis or make some implications if you want to interact.

No need to put me in the email chain, if u want me to look at evidence, you can just say it during round or after and I'll look at it.

PF

Speed is okay as long as what you are saying is understandable

Don't be toxic or unnecessarily aggressive

Have cut cards

Must collapse and weigh comparatively (Don't just say: lives are the most important, explain why lives are more important than a corn shortage)

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal

In order to win an argument, you must frontline ALL responses - do not just extend through ink

Extend warrants and card names w/ year (Ex: Smith 19)

Must extend in BOTH summary and final focus

Warrant and flesh out everything really well

I do not like progressive stuff at all unless there is a major violation that warrants it

rayan sengupta is a lifer. if you say he is a lifer, I will hack for you.

hello my wonderful speechies and debaters! my name is vy nguyen and i am a varsity member in speech and debate. i have been doing speech for three years and debate for about two years. i am currently a senior at leland high and i am grateful to be able to judge all these wonderful and talented novices! i don't really look for any specific things but i would say that i find eye contact, good hand gestures, and accurate pausing to be very important. i love watching debate rounds so if you are in debate make sure to be kind in your rounds and give your opponents the chance to ask questions! i do not tolerate rudeness so please be kind to one another. anyways... treat people with kindness just like harry styles said!

Please treat me as you would a lay parent judge––don't use debate jargon, don't talk too quickly, don't run obscure arguments w/o properly explaining them.

I will vote for it if it sounds good.

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and do not disrespect opponents!

(she/her)

hi! I am a sophomore in high school and this will be my second year of policy debate!

- I have done Duo, BQ, Oratorical Interpretation/Declamation, and Policy in these 2 years

Debate:

If it's not policy, just treat me like a lay judge that flows, because I'm not really familiar with other debate events.

I LOVE analysis, but in order to have that you've got to have a strong understanding of evidence. Also for the other way around, don't just read evidence the whole time, you've got to have analysis for me for it to be a sufficient argument.

I love love love pathos. And big picture analysis/overview-ish analysis is awesome. Basically, I want you to write my ballot for me, big picture, two world analysis, impact calc, etc. anything that will make my job easier/clearer to vote aff or neg.

I definitely weigh the last speeches/rebuttals more, so end your debate with a bang! Within the debate, make comparisons of each side and each side's arguments, and prioritize explaining why and which one is better or weighed heavier. Please explain any arguments in a way that makes sense, so I won't be lost, shuffling my flow papers, flailing in confusion :) and please please please have clash. If there's no clash, the debate literally isn't productive at all, and I will start crying in the corner and use a random number generator to vote for me

Please don't spread, yes, I can understand speaking faster, but if you go turbo speed on me, I'll start doing my ap euro homework. If you do bring up any circuity or fast arguments, please explain them in detail, and why I should vote for you on that, you don't have to go super in detail, just enough so that I can actually understand the debate :)

And last but not least, please be nice; i am a tabula rasa judge(blank slate), so I am open to all arguments on the exception that it is generally just blatantly false, or offensive.

I will not tolerate ableist, sexist, racist etc, any discriminatory behavior or arguments. We're all here to have fun, so just be a nice. person. please. I'm begging you.

anyway, i just want a super fun and educational debate that everyone can enjoy.

yall are awesome and have fun!

help paradigms are weird

please be nice

Don’t be problematic.

I have 3 years of experience with Parli debate at Leland. Be organized, signpost, speak clearly, and weigh. I prefer on-case debate; please refrain from running Kritiks and only run Theory when it is absolutely necessary.

I vote neg because I hate change and aff because im positive. glhf

Hi! First of all, good luck and have fun! For novice debate, do whatever you practiced! Don't worry about the more techy parts of the debate!

A little bit about myself: I've done high school policy for 4 years now and a bit of public forum in middle school. I will flow your arguments so try not to drop any! I can tolerate speed, but please do not start spreading unless it is a circuit tournament (but I probably won't be judging that).

Be kind to everyone. I will not tolerate any rudeness or offensive comments.

General (updated for Novice Debate):

- I probably don't understand all the details/ins and outs of the resolution of your event (LD, PF, or Parli) - try not to use debate jargon that someone not well versed in the topic area might not understand (unless it was under the cjr/water/NATO/econ ineq topics)

- Try your best! You'll do fine <3

- I won't flow cx unless you bring it up in one of your speeches

- Read offense! if you only read defense, I'll be sad :(

- Weigh your impacts!

For policy (!!!):

- I will be flowing and this is the most familiar debate format to me, so please try to elaborate on your arguments.

- Give an offtime roadmap before you start (aka an order) so I can flow your arguments, otherwise I will just write them down based on how I hear them (and the debate might get messy and I might miss one of your arguments).

- Read AT LEAST the author and date of publication before reading cards.

- Signpost!

- Frame the debate for me! Make it clear to me how you want me to vote, otherwise, I will vote based on arguments and what I think is a better argument.

• net benefits?
• stock issues?
• any other f/ws?

- Make it clear what your plan is! I will try to only vote on arguments brought up in the debate, and if I don't know your plan, I cannot vote for you.

- I love smart solvency takeouts, but be sure to elaborate on how the plan links to that though!

- CPs should have a counterplan text and clear net benefit. DAs should have AT LEAST a link and an impact. I will buy uniqueness if worded well. T should have a definition, standards/violation, impact, AND why your definition is better. Ks are cool but I personally don't know too much about each k :(

she/her

-high speaks if you aren’t racist or rude

-I flow

-experience in pf, parli, and ld

PF at Leland High School for 3 years

- You can speak decently fast

- No extending through ink

- Extend everything in final focus

- You don’t have to extend full card names

- I don’t vote off cross but please be polite

- Make sure you weigh your impacts

- Don’t misconstrue evidence

- Please cut all your cards, it makes things much easier

- I’m not comfortable with theory

Thank you have fun!

Don’t be too unclear, present under stable topics and arguments, be clear and considerate with what you are arguing, and just have and fun experience debating

Please add me on the email chain (if rules allow)! jasper7966@gmail.com

Email me above^ if you have any questions about my paradigm too (or ask me before the round)

​

Debate:

- will try to be tech > truth

- not super well versed in Ks, F/W, or tricks debate; run at your own risk

- speed is fine (but I'll have a little trouble with spreading), send speech docs pls

Congress:

- will rank POs

- make sure your speech is appropriate for where it is (eg no constructives in 6th cycle)

and make sure to have fun :)

​

Flow judge

4 years PF at Leland

he/him

PF:

-Put me on the email chain: dxie18@gmail.com

-Frontline in second rebuttal

-Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh comparatively -- don't just say your impact is important, show why it's more important than your opponent's

-Give warrants. Don't just read statistics with no reasoning or warranting.

-Terminal defense > Weighing. make sure you at least access your impact in some way before weighing it

-Metaweigh, otherwise I'll probably just default to prereq/short circuit > link-in > everything else or evaluate based on mitigatory defense/whatever feels intuitive

-I don't like DAs that don't interact with the case at all but I'll evaluate them reluctantly

-Misconstrued evidence won't be evaluated and you'll probably lose speaks

-I really really prefer that you don't spread. I don't like flowing off a doc. I will evaluate spreading if you give me a doc but I'd rather not have to.

-Please time yourself.

-Tech > Truth. I'll vote on anything but keep in mind that crazy arguments that don't make a lot of sense are a lot easier for your opponents to respond to

-Don't be problematic

-I don't flow cross and won't vote on it. If something important happens in cross, it must be mentioned in speech for it to be on my flow.

-I don't like calling for cards. I will try to avoid calling for cards. MAKE MY JOB EASY, do the indicting and the evidence comparison in your speech. I will always try to evaluate evidence clashes solely based on what is said in the round, me calling for evidence should be the last last resort if I can't break a clash.

-If you want to concede defense to kick out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read, you should also explain why the defense takes out the turn

Progressive Arguments

-Theory and Ks: I'm not too familiar with them, especially Ks, but you can run them (sorry if I make the wrong decision though). I don't like friv theory but I won't hack against it

-No CPs/Tricks

Not PF:

-frontline in the speech after responses are made

-warrants please

VBI

I can evaluate everything—I never debated Ks but I find K literature interesting. Prefer substance rounds

Hi everyone! I've done PF for 5 years at Leland High School so I'm pretty comfortable with flowing and technical debate. Add me to the email chain sterlingaxie@gmail.com.

Specific to SVUDL Novice PF:

I'm okay with speed but try to go slower online. On the flow, make sure you collapse by summary and extend in every speech. I won't evaluate anything that isn't extended fully. Weigh by second rebuttal or first summary. Be very clear where you want me to vote and why. Defense isn't sticky (meaning you must extend defense in both summary and final focus). I will vote off the flow unless there's a huge violation (abusive, toxic opponents). I won't flow cross but I'll listen. Tell me it was said in cross if you want to reference it in argumentation.

Comparative weighing (refer below) means you compare the worlds with prerequisite weighing and link-ins, not just "our number is bigger". Magnitude weighing will only be considered if there are no better weighing mechanisms in the round.

If your opponents read new responses in second summary or final focus, you must tell me in your next speech in order for me to cross the response off my flow.

General:

• defense is not sticky—responses must be extended in every speech in order for me to consider it
• comparative weighing in second rebuttal or first summary
• all responses should be well-warranted even if it's just an extension
• all frontlines must be in the immediate next speech
• i can handle speed but send speech docs
• don't be problematic
• i don't flow cross but tell me if there's anything important i should note on my flow
• signpost well and tell me where you are
• speak clearly even if you're going fast so you're comprehensible

Progressive Debate:

• I don't have much experience with progressive arguments so make sure you tell me how to evaluate theory, Ks, etc.

email: jessicary06@gmail.com

Two years of experience with PF and Expos/Info

*If you are in a partner event, you MUST be astrologically compatible with your partner. I can sense it. If not, -1 rank for speech, -5 speaker points for debate

For speech:

if you give solutions in your info speech i will be very sad

For debate:

Speak slowly and explain your arguments well. If you start spreading then I will start crying.

pretend I am lay because I am probably tired at the moment (but I will flow)

- please signpost

- extend

- don't be rude

auto 30 speaks if:

- you show up in a banana costume or

- you show up in a frog costume

debated pf on the nat circuit from 2020-2024 under Leland YC and Leland LY

email chain: jeannineyu@ucla.edu

flow

tech>truth, tabula rasa

How I evaluate:

1. who is winning the weighing/framing?—I go to their case/other weighed lines of offense
2. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I look to the other case/lines of offense.
3. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I presume to evaluating like a lay judge (which team was more "convincing" lol) unless you tell me otherwise

Must Dos:

-weigh comparatively (the earlier the better!) I will default to the team with weighing even if they only have a marginal amount of access to their offense. my fav weighing mechs were prereqs, impact magnifiers, timeframe metaweighing (i am a huge sucker for going for and weighing conceded turns in summary) if you do impressive weighing/round vision i will give you crazy high speaks

-signpost

-extend everything you want me to vote for in summary and FF (defense is not sticky) do NOT extend through ink, if your opponents do it just call them out, no need to respond to it

-do full link chain extensions, i will be very unwilling to vote on shadow extensions

Progressive:

-not a huge fan of theory, but willing to evaluate reasonable shells for actual abuse (don't make me judge a disclo or paraphrase round please)

-i read only 1 topical K in my senior year with a friend who is a much better K debater than me, i'm willing to evaluate Ks but a) at your own risk b) send me all docs so i can follow along

-tricks and friv = bad speaks

Other:

-I can handle reasonable amounts of speed but prefer you to not go over 200 wpm. send a doc for fast speeches. you must be coherent and actually read what's on the doc for me to flow it

-average speaks 28.5-29.5, goes up or down based on how you debate. higher speaks for paper speeches!

-I'll flow responses that begin before the end of the speech time, anything after I will strike from the flow if the other team calls it out

-to minimize intervention, I only look at evidence if it's indicted in a speech or if anyone asks me to

-bring food for 30s

-don't be mean, rude, or discriminatory

please ask if you have any questions! :))

Hey,

Call me eric or judge, i use he/him pronouns, im a varsity parli main at leland, i know other debate events though! (less of policy lol)

General things:

• more flow than lay

• All debaters should adjust to the slowest preferred pace by the panel of judges

• If you have 1 lay and 2 flows, go lay

• general speaks are around 27.5-28

• I will follow the tournament rules and disclose accordingly if allowed

• tech>truth, will evaluate whatever args you throw at me though you have to explain things clearly if i may not know background.

• I wont call for evidence, it is up to the opponents to question unwarranted and suspicious arguments

• If you dont question it, i will default to believing the evidence as true

• I like to flow on paper, so let me know if you want me to flow on a diff sheet

• i usually wont flow cross, but i will listen to them :D

What I like, thus what you should do:

• Sign postings,

• road maps,

• clear introduction/transition to a different subject,

• EXPLANATIONS AND ELABORATIONS (if you don't explain, I will not buy them),

• A few flushed out contentions instead of like 8 different short contentions with no evidence, explanations, impacts, etc

• clear background info

• Like if topic is war in Jordan or something, I'm sorry... but I'm def not the most knowledgeable about what you are saying if you dont give background info

• theory is like... okay, i guess, not the most well versed in technical debate, but run theory if you explain them well enough with clear impact

What I don't like:

• Any rude, racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments of any sort, I will tell tab if you do any of the things I mentioned here

• Laughing at opponents or even your partner (excluding LD ofc)

• I am okay with spreading I guess, but if either I or the opponent(s) say "slow" or indicate that you are going too fast, then you should slow down.

• The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated

• Debate is an educational and chill activity and everyone here wants and deserves to learn and grow in a safe and protected environment, if you violate that and prevent that from happening, I will use my powers as a judge (and I don't want to do that to anyone)

Feel free to have a casual conversation with me before/after the round (if I don't have a round to get to) about any of my experience as a debater and I have some interesting stories that I can tell LOL

Good luck and Have fun :D

hi yall! i coach congress for leland, but i also did pf and policy a fair bit during my time debating

TOC '22 Congress Quarterfinalist

Congress:

- dont feel pressured to do only late round speeches — I'll bump up good constructives/authorships so don't worry about not getting clash in as an early speaker

- PO's will generally be ranked pretty highly, depending on how many mistakes you make/how efficient you are

- i vote between a mix of argumentation and presentation — both are important for ranking well

- i like questions that try to point flaws in logic, try to keep new evidence for your own speeches (basically no leading questions)

- debatey terminology like "warrant" and "framework" are okay with me, but i know some judges don't like it so proceed with caution

- don't forget the congress roleplay! That also means that you can include arguments that come as a consequence of previous legislation — e.g. if theres a docket that includes VAT tax and UBI, and VAT tax was passed in an earlier round, then you can now use that to fund the UBI bill! don't forget the congressional rhetoric too

- please please please please figure and stick to splits at the beginning of the round — too many times in which people got screwed because the aff/neg cycle screws over later speakers. if you are forced/choose to flip, ill bump you up

General debate (excluding Congress):

- if rules allow, add me on the email chain: smmzhu@gmail.com

- feel free to run unique and strange arguments, as long as they are explained well and arent offensive

- progressive arguments (Ks, high theory) may be evaluated if i can understand them, but I have basically no experience in progressive arguments, so run at your own risk

- spread at your own risk (250+ wpm), and send a speech doc past 200+ wpm

- signpost pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

- anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. = automatic drop (duh), also make sure to include content warnings when necessary

- please don't be rude

- being funny will help ur speaks, debate can get dry without it

- ill disclose if tourney rules allow and both teams agree

PF:

- paraphrasing is okay, I will assume that your card tags are correct until someone contests them (if there is slight ambiguity then that's okay, but if there's wild misconstruing I may have to intervene)

- in cross, i'll be watching but not flowing so if theres anything flow worthy, bring it up in the subsequent speech

- please extend your links and warrants throughout the debate, i swear i will cry if you dont

- extend in rebuttal, and second rebuttal should have frontlines — anything you go for must be in summary and FF

- you can win off of a turn, but you would need to weigh those turns against the opponents contentions

- please do your own weighing, i dont wanna do weighing for you cuz im super lazy

- hopefully i dont have to read through cards at the end of the round, but i will do so if it RFD depends on it

- no third final focus, you know who you are

Policy:

- ive done a bit of lay policy, so i know about how the general debate format works

- anything circuit (kritiks, theory) must be explained spectacularly to a dodo like me, also run at your own risk since i know nothing about k lit

- framework (burden of proof, net benefits, etc.) will default to utilitarianism until someone provides a framework to follow

LD/Parli:

- im a bit newer to these debates, but i think most of the general debate concepts dont change, so just explain your jargon

gj for making it thus far into my paradigm, hope round runs smoothly

any questions? email me at smmzhu@gmail.com