I am a lay judge who enjoys listening to debates. Pls speak at a conversational pace and do explain the jargons, if you use any.

My email id is :- deepali1.agni@gmail.com

UW'23

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org

LD Paradigm

I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination

Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I am an artist and business owner. This is my first time judging, but I appreciate a well-reasoned argument. Know your topic, and be as objective as possible. Also, keep jargon and hyperbole to a minimum; remember that brevity is the soul of wit! NO SPEED!

(she/her) I'm a senior at the University of Washington and debated public forum for three years. You can run pretty much whatever and I'll vote off the flow. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.

Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but the speed needs to be purposeful. Nothing is worse than listening to a fast speech filled with useless info.

As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. When there is clash, I want you to clearly lay out why I need to prefer your side. Any we said/they said arguments with no analysis are going to be a wash. Use impact calc and the specific terms.

Make the debate fun!! Its always better to judge fun rounds, and you should be enjoying yourselves as well.

PF: I welcome close inspection and evaluation of evidence to determine validity and weigh evidence on both sides of the debate. I will absolutely consider impacts but don't consider them the "be all and end all". Be original and clear, provide clash, and don't over complicate. Please don't overdo it on the speed.

LD: I am an advocate for classic LD. I prefer clear delivery and at least a modicum of effort to have effective verbal and non-verbal communication. Please provide values clash and establish what you believe to be the best standard for weighing the round. Make clear connections between the resolution, value, value criterion, and your contentions. Feel free to delve into the philosophical. I do not believe the format of LD is well suited to spreading nor do I think the conventions of the framework lend themselves to solvency, kritiks, plans, and counterplans. If you would like to debate policy, find yourself a partner. Having said that, I will do my best to understand all arguments, get them on the flow, and judge the round on its merits.

Dartmouth, Interlake. She/Her.

Email chain:

noracai52@gmail.com, interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

Please include the tournament, round number, & teams in the subject line.

Online:

Do not start a speech before receiving verbal or visual confirmation from all debaters & me. If my video is off assume I am away.

T/L:

I have no topic knowledge, please limit your use of acronyms & over-explain!

Tech over truth, but the "tech" necessary to win untrue arguments is always higher.

I am possibly more opposed to cheaty, non-educational strategies than most. My evaluation of line-by-line is premised on the requirement that an argument requires a claim and a warrant. Anything less than that (cardless con-con) should be quickly addressed and dismissed. When it does become an argument, new answers are permitted.

Flowability, especially online, is extremely important. I do not judge with the documents open.

I will read evidence after the round if debaters compare evidence in their speeches (they should) or if evaluating the flow alone is insufficient to render a decision.

Hiding ASPEC = 25.

I default to offense-defense but can be convinced otherwise. Examples:

- I default to competing interps but will invert that given a well-executed 2AR about predictability & reasonability.

- Zero-risk of a DA is possible, but I must be told why a zero-risk frame is justifiable.

CPs:

Advantage CPs that simply... "induce" are non-starters. Planks need to depart from the status quo and propose substantive solutions. That requires more granular problem definition than [here is the AFF's impact which we think is a problem and we shall now declare we will fix this].

I am capable of adjudicating competition debates but go slow. I am not ideological about voting for/against particular theory arguments.

Ks:

Ks on the NEG - Good for Ks that critique core assumptions of the 1AC. Bad for Ks of tangential card rhetoric. You link you lose is an uphill battle. My knowledge of critical literature diminishes the further the K strays away from identity/ecology.

Ks on the AFF - I am more capable of adjudicating AFFs that present defense to T impacts and offense solved by a counter-interp than AFFs that impact-turn topicality. While I will technically adjudicate these debates to the best of my ability, note that I have exclusively read plans throughout my debate career and may have subconscious biases. If you are AFF, you should raise the threshold for explaination of DAs to T. If you are NEG, fairness and clash are both terminal and independent impacts. Internal links should be explained through the lens of predictable limits.

Speaker points

- Rewarded for cutting well-researched, specific strategies over the NGA CP, evidence comparison, persuasive ethos, well-executed CX, strategic vision.

- Tanked for shenanigans, being disrespectful (check yourself if you are a white cis-het male).

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking quickly is fine, but if I can't actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weight.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I look for a well-crafted, logical argument supported by data, well-delivered with eye contact, at a normal rate of speech. Relying on anecdotes and speaking too quickly to be easily comprehended are not favored.

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Hi, I'm Allison (she/her) and I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school and in Worlds debate at the National Tournament for 3 years. I am also the daughter of two debate coaches and have grown up in the activity.

Public Forum:

I am a traditional Public Forum judge. The biggest thing I ask of any debaters I judge is that you persuade me to vote for you. Your FF should be spent spent weighing the round for me, I will not do it for you. I will only vote on points that are carried through from summary to final focus. I do not prefer off time roadmaps. Respect and be kind for your opponents.

I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speeches. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm not a fan of progressive argumentation so use only when necessary, I would much rather see a traditional Value-Criterion debate. I can handle some speed. Depth > breadth. Make sure you have clear signposting and use voters! If you do not weigh your impacts, I will not weigh them for you and you will drop my ballot.

All debate styles: The best debaters are the ones who know the most, prove to me you're the debater who knows the most.

Also feel free to ask any questions before the round if you need clarifications. Good Luck!

new judge

please speak slow

be clear about your points, give me voters, make sure to weigh and be respectful in round

I have limited knowledge about the topic, so please explain everything clearly to me

I am a parent volunteer judge who professionally works in medicine/science. I look for civil arguments with great logic, command of facts, and sharp minds who can find weakness in their opponents' arguments and further debate.

I am a new judge. I would like to see a traditionally structured debate. Please speak clearly and enunciate.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Former: Congressional debate, oratory, extemporaneous speaking, world schools w/ Mount Vernon.

Currently a student at Western Washington University, studying Urban Planning and Sustainable Development - that means I'll be a little more knowledgeable on housing, zoning, transit, land use, and similar issues.

Congress:

Please don't rehash.

I should hear refutation as soon as the 1st neg.

Ihate when we spend an hour-plus on each bill. I would much prefer an individual speak on less bills but prioritize speaking on the bills they know the most about. Of course, I know that this isn't how congress normally goes.

Don't be bigoted. Congress, for some reason, seems to love being bigoted. Don't.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. Question answering/giving - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like

5. Congressional BS - take charge in the chamber! Be the one introducing motions, calling for votes, etc. (I'll also knock you for dumb BS like amendments that derail the debate)

For POs: be efficient in the chamber and courteous to your fellow congresspeople.

Worlds:

Remember that worlds is aworld event. I should hear evidence, arguments, and statistics from world sources. Eurocentrism bad.

Cite sources in speech or be prepared to source when weighing statistics or arguments.

My order of priority is roughly:

1. Content/quality of arguments

2. Organization of arguments

3. Clarity of speaking

4. POIs - I'm not tracking questions perse, but I'll note if I hear a question/answer I like. I'll note if someone is asking too many POIs, accepting too many, not accepting any, etc.

A good number of POIs accepted per speech is 2-3, a good number asked is roughly 1 every 30 seconds. A good rule of thumb (for me) is enough asked to annoy the other team but not annoy the judge.

Any new refutation introduced in the 4 won't be considered. Elaboration on previous examples if fine in the 3, but I shouldn't be hearing new information.

Slow down. Presentationally, worlds is somewhere in-between congress and pufo.

POIs are not CX. there is no back-and-forth, and they can be statements. (if anything, statement POIs can be better as they tend to trip up the speaking team)

Speeches:

Calm, clear speaking. Well-researched points. If you believe you know what you're talking about, then I will too.

Extemp/impromptu/similar: Within reason, I'm fine with short time if it means you aren't repeating yourself for 30 seconds.

10 years judging and coaching PF—9 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions--two online years), 7 times at Nationals

Add me to your evidence email. brandonc@svsd410.org

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

If you do better in providing relevant points that connect to the topic and providing proofs and credible data to support them, you have my vote. I’m looking for a respectful, stable debate. Don’t be overly aggressive or spread.

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

I am a new judge, still learning how to do this. Please speak clearly, be concise, respectful to each other, and have fun.

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

Although I participated in high school debate years ago, I am new to debate judging, so please have patience and help me improve. Some things you can do that will help me:

1. Speak at a normal speed so I can take better notes on your arguments.
2. Use sign-posting to clearly communicate the arguments you are answering.
3. Stay within your time limits.
4. Have some fun!

Thank you.

New Judge.

I am new to judging. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments clearly in front of me. I am strongly biased against logical fallacies.

**it's kinda long, tl;dr read the bold to avoid nasty surprises post-round. If possible, please flip and pre-flow if y'all are outside the room waiting. For background, I was team captain of PF 3 for years at Interlake and debated at nationals, TOC, and State. I will always disclose, as I believe it's good to have solid feedback for your future rounds. Majority paradigm credits to Kayla Chang.

I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round.

---Normal tech stuff

First speaking teams: terminal defense is sticky if you extend it into FF (obviously you must respond if it's frontlined), any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns thru FF as mitigation/terminal D.

Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary, but it comes off way stronger if you respond to it from second rebuttal. If you read DAs in 2nd rebuttal, I'll have a very low threshold for responses needed to block it. New carded offense in second summary is a no go.

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense, as your arguments get more extreme (ex. War is good) I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

---More unique stuff

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds)

Please signpost by voter tag, links, or impacts (ideally numbered). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.

No new evidence in FF. I don't count it, you make the other team mad, you lose speaks.

Give off-time road maps. Makes my job soo much easier, just tell me the order on the flow your going through OR signpostreally well. Bad signposting for a messy flow is the easiest way to lose speaks.

Don't extend through ink. If you tell me to "extend this dropped argument" I'm not going to, you need to extend the warranting and or evidence that applies to that argument.

If it not in FF, its not a voter. yeah.

If you run a useless framework, - 3 to 5 speaks.

---Other stuff

-Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, in my eyes it's only a means to get concessions and clarify sticky situations. The only way concessions end up on my flow is if you bring it up in a speech. Please don't talk between partners in the first two crosses, they're intended to be 1v1. You can call for cards, but read the cards in prep time.

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading but it's annoying when people try to speak fast and can't. The faster you go, the more likely it is for me to miss it on the flow, speed at your own risk. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm generally at least listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :).

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters though, so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) or there's actual discrimination happening or it's drop the arg not the debater. Apologies can work.

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I have the same link standard for weighing as I do with voting issues. But weigh! Do it! Yes!

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. I have voted teams down and dropped speaks for bad evidence ethics. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to DURING ROUND, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

-Postrounding: As a debater, I had a saying: Even in rounds you believe SHOULD have won, there are always things you could do so you COULD have won. If it was unclear, it was unclear. You should have made it clear in your speech, don't try to clear it up with me post-round. Chances are, your postrounding will just reinforce my RFD in my head.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

- Thoughts: I try to be easy to read, feel free to take those signs; I generally don’t presume (tbh I think I just forget it's an option so I have to not understand ANYTHING going on - but feel free to discuss w me or make an argument why and for whom I should), I'll generally instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. My name is not judge.

Debate should be fun, so debate in a way that makes it fun.

P.S. if you have questions, want my flow after round, I’m running late, etc. text me! (425-635-8206).

I’m a parent judge who has judged HS Public Forum in the past (2017-2019) and consider myself a more traditional public forum judge.

I appreciate a clear and succinct analysis of why you should win in the final focus. I judge Quality over Quantity.

I like:

1. Clear and concise arguments

2. References should add value to your argument (Quality v. Quantity)

3. Speak clearly and at a cadence to be understood

My background is primarily Policy and Public Forum Debate. I am rapidly gaining experience in LD.

FOR LD DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed. I hate listening to spreading and my brain borderline shuts down if you speak too fast. If I can't understand you because you're going too fast, I'm probably not flowing and probably not really tracking your arguments at all. I like to judge primarily on my flow, so you should probably slow down a bit.

I won't vote on tricks.

My background is primarily CX and PF, so you may have to briefly explain the purpose of some of the very LD specific terminologies or theories.

Explain why your value/criterion are preferable to your opponents'.

Please do impact calculus, and please ground your impacts in reality.

Be nice to each other. Being rude or snarky sucks.

FOR POLICY DEBATE

I am not a fan of speed (especially constructive speeches when you are presenting your case). I would much prefer quality of arguments over quantity. If I can't keep up or understand your arguments, you won't win them. I know you like to spread in Policy, but I borderline hate it. SLOW DOWN. You can do it. You can adapt to your judge's paradigm. You are capable of doing that, I promise. You don't have to run 6 off-case on the neg. You really don't have to!

I would like to vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am generally okay with everything as long as they are explained well. Don't just read your arguments, explain their purpose in the round! However, I am more of a "traditional" judge in that I would usually much prefer a solid debate about the resolution rather than endless K debates with super generic links. Lately I have seen more bad K debates than good traditional debates. It makes me very sad. I judge primarily based on what I see on my flow. It is in your best interest to use roadmaps, signposting, clear taglines, and SLOW THE HECK DOWN to make my job of flowing the debate as easy as possible.

I also prefer impacts grounded in realism. If every single policy debater for 50 years that has been claiming nuclear war as an impact was actually right about it, the world would've been destroyed 1,000 times over. But regional conflict? Economic downturn? Environmental damage? Oppression of minority populations? These are impacts we've actually witnessed as a result of policy action. I strongly prefer impacts that I as an Earthling can actually visualize happening.

I will be friendly with speaker points to debaters who are friendly to each other. I will be unfriendly with speaker points to debaters who are unfriendly with each other. This should be a fun experience for everyone. Just be nice to each other.

Nicholas.Phillips@bellinghamschools.org

Hi!

I'm a high school senior and I compete in Public Forum.

When you're debating make sure to weigh impacts and try not to drop any time. Just make sure you try your best and are respectful in round. The round should be fun! Don't stress too much!

If you make a Taylor Swift reference I'll give you full speaks!

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

I have spent a lot of time helping and supporting the debate program at Mount Si over the last 7 years. I have watched a lot of rounds and understand the basic terms and structure.

I value clear and strong arguments. If you speak too fast, then I may not catch what you are trying to say and then I can’t count it in your favor.

I also value being polite. I won’t tolerate rudeness or being overly aggressive.

Debate is supposed to be fun and a learning activity. Just play fair and do your best!

Hi Debaters,

I started participating in debate judging about six years ago when my son began participating in debate. My focus is to understand the discussion from an ordinary person's point of view who is not well versed in the topic. This helps me understand who can convince me of their point of view and rebutt other teams' arguments.

My style is of a lay judge. I like/dislike the following:

- Clear and concise arguments

- References should add value to your argument

- Speak at pace to be understood

- Be respectful to the other side

- focus on rebuttal but don't take all the time to make your point

I am looking forward to learning from you on the topic of debate.

Good Luck.

Sandeep

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I used to debate Policy in the late 80s and am just getting back into judging high school debate.

I prefer well-articulated arguments, backed by evidence. I am open to a good theory debate but wouldn't call myself tabula rasa -- I will apply basic knowledge and common sense.

I am open to judging both PF and LD and can handle a moderate amount of speed.

Be respectful during Cross.

Call for cards when necessary.

Will accept off-time road maps.

Will be timing but it is expected for you to also time.

Going fast is okay but only if it is for a reason. For example, you have a long constructive speech. You will still be expected to be clear.

Impactful points brought up in cross must be restated in summary or they will not pull through.

Have fun and debate cleanly!

I have an extensive history in debate. I did LD in high school and CEDA in college. I have coached NPDA, IPDA and BP as well as a full spectrum of speech events. I am currently the Director at the University of Washington Bothell.

I prefer clash debate. I don't mind speed as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. Debate should not leave anyone out. Make sure to meet criteria. After that, I try to be tab and judge on what the debaters bring into the round.

About me:

I am a coach at Mountlake Terrace High School. I was awarded most argumentative in high school, and probably would still hold that title if re-evaluated.

My strength is in historical periods/perspectives, philosophy and morality. I'm a Math and Social Studies teacher; so I like when arguments take good research, with strong sources, and combine it with logic and interpretation of material mixed into a smooth transitory argument.

I like civility and respect in my debates but don't mind rebuttals and crosses having a little bite to them.

I like sources that are short and concise but to a strong point, especially with numbers/stats!

Strength of an argument is brought through strong points that are well articulated and backed with sources. Out-speaking your opponent in words-per-second is not a source of victory from my standpoint.

I don't mind controversial topics being brought in as long as it is done tastefully and with purpose.

Off time roadmaps are always helpful but by no means necessary.

Speech-

With so many varying speech types paradigms are a little harder to pinpoint. The most consistent and well-put-together performances that include strong openings and closings with details/script inside. Vocabulary, diction, intonation and articulation in your words, emoting/gesturing in your body language, and preparedness (as much as possible) are the qualities I look for.

Any questions on my paradigms please feel free to ask!

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.

Guidelines:

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.

I stop listening when you go over time.

I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.

Have fun!

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

consider me a flay judge, I'll flow but I most likely won't catch everything

- I have to write feedback, I'll flow constructive on paper, don't worry I'm still listening when I type feedback after constructive speeches

- please be kind in cross, but don't let the other team walk over you. I like a heated cross, but no insults thrown pls ????????

- I don't flow cross, but I'm listening

- no Ks or anything crazy, I'm not tryna work my brain too hard

- NO MUMBLE RAPPING or else I will start crying and throwing up in round and make ur speaks 0

- please interact with the opponent's case, don't assume I know everything you're talking about, and WEIGH

- truth>tech

- be kind and have fun, bring me food or compliment me every time u start prep for +1 speaks (u can tell me my hair looks nice or smth)

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Looking for good quality cases, facts, and evidence supporting your contentions from both sides. Listen to your opponent’s arguments, being courteous and logical. Focus on the clarity of the debater's speech, the quality of the arguments made, and the ability to defend your positions.

she/her

interlake '23, umich '27

background: I did policy debate for all of high school & am not debating in college, 2A/1N.

add me to the chain: anniemz111@gmail.com & interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

top level:

gonzaga: don't have any topic knowledge so please over-explain topic concepts or community consensus arguments and break down acronyms

speed is fine, just be clear.

tech > truth (if you drop something, it's true), but you need to fully extend the argument & explain why whatever they dropped matters.

judge instruction in the rebuttals will be rewarded -- you should frame my ballot and make clear a win condition for the aff/neg. I really enjoy "even if" statements.

read whatever you are best at, just don't be offensive but I highly prefer smart, well-researched arguments over spamming silly off (looking @ con con & nga).

read rehighlightings if it's a new argument, you can insert if it's an evidence indict/for a k link

love when people number args!!

pet peeves:

- not responding to opponent's arguments/warrants

- word salad highlighting

- talking over other people excessively in cx

- non-word docs (pdf, gdocs, etc.) & speech drop

- "3..2..1.."

- calling me judge

- not timing yourselves

theory:

very neg leaning on condo, am not the best judge for condo debates but i could still evaluate it. however, i won't vote for any other theory unless it's dropped (still need to extend fully though). slow down when reading theory blocks.

aspec = -1 speaks

t:

i dislike plan text in a vacuum but still answer it.

give case lists to your interpretations

do impact calculus

affs:

dislike generic framing pages, enjoy cohesive internal link chains

cp:

loveeee

affs send out perm texts!

cp's need solvency advocates in the 1NC, dislike stupid adv cp planks

highly enjoy well-executed and strategic competition debates, i think it is much more effective than theory

impact out solvency deficits

will not default judge kick

LOVE cps specific to AFF

da:

good, 0 risk is a thing

love good evidence here

k:

do not read death good. not good for k v k debates or high-theory/pomo debates.

ins:

extinction outweighs (can be convinced otherwise with good debating):

alts

links highly contextualized to the AFF.

impact comparison

neg impacts on fwk about research/epistemology (not good for in-round psychic violence impacts)

outs:

"you link you lose"

copy pasting blocks especially 2NR

random backfiles

k affs:

not the best for this

love innovative/k aff-specific neg strategies, SSD, & TVA

prefer education impacts on t