Howdy it's me!

A little about me: I competed in Congress for 4 years as a high schooler across the Illinois and National Circuit, having made the final rounds of Emory, Harvard, TOC, and more! Hope I can bring a lot of that experience and give you good feedback!

Anyways, here's what I'm looking for: I tend to weigh content above delivery, so most of my paradigm will center around my content expectations. 

You should have different content for different stages of the debate, and I have different expectations of you at these different stages. I don't really rank one type of speech over the other – it's just who fulfills their chosen role the best in the round that picks up my ballot!

Sponsorship: A basic sponsorship has three key components: A problem bloc (show me why we need this bill, what's the problem that you are trying to solve?), a solvency bloc(how does this legislation come into play? reference the legislation specifically!), an impact bloc (what are the impacts of this legislation? Who, what benefits?) I should not feel the need to fill any of these blocs at the end of your speech. Since this is a pre-prepared speech, strong sources and delivery are the expectations. To go above and beyond, what makes an excelling sponsor would be its ability to capture my mind. Does your rhetoric vividly paint the world before and after this legislation, is there a theme to your speech, does it stand out from what's considered "stock"? Unless it's asked for by the other judge in the room, I generally don't like pre-refutations, a practice where you try to pre-emptively refute the other side. My problem with it is that you may have just wasted 10 seconds of your time refuting an argument that might not even be made when you could instead use it towards creating a stronger picture of the legislation and your advocacy. I won't dock points because of it if it's in a sponsor, but if you're giving pre-refutations in any speech other than the sponsorship, and you don't give a single relevant ref to a relevant speaker, that's going to be raising some eyebrows from me.

Constructives (1-3rd Cycle): A good constructive should either introduce new arguments that weren't in the round before or extend off of the rest of the debate. Again, Congress is a debate event, so I especially love to see speeches that integrate well into the round so far – rather than speeches that stand alone without any interaction to the round whatsoever, so an early round speaker that integrates relevant refutations well into their speeches will pick up my ballot! Ask yourselves, who or what's been the strongest speaker/argument from both sides? What can you add to the debate that hasn't been brought up already to support or challenge these arguments?

Late-Round(4th-6th): Generally, the late-round speakers who rank the best on my ballot are the speakers who can identify the biggest clashes of the round and add their own original unique take/analysis on it. A brief overview helps, but you should be doing a lot more than just summarizing. Is there a round-breaking statistic you can bring that no one has brought up? Is there something the entire round has been forgetting? Is there a glaring hole in the other side's arguments that no one's brought up? In these types of speeches, content will be especially weighed more heavily than delivery (you likely prepared this in-round, so the rhetoric/lay appeal might not be fully there, which is completely understandable), but if you do a good job in both, then you'll REALLY excel on my ballot! :)

PO's: A lot of my Congress career was based on presiding and I truly recognize the importance of a strong, good PO. I'm looking for PO's that maintain a strong sense of control over the room, PO's that can lead the chamber to a successful session with their own individual flair (the occasional humor, etc.). Unless something goes terribly awry, like the splits aren't even and we're stuck in recess for 10 minutes or longer because someone has to give a speech and you didn't do anything to address the situation, or you weren't being efficient or equitable, I'll always rank a good PO high, within my Top 4! :)

Questioning: Please question as much as possible! It not only helps you to maintain a round presence – if you gave a great speech but didn't question AT ALL, it's going to hurt you more than it helps you. If you gave an early-round speech, round's not over! Defend your speech against the other speeches in cross-x, and if you are speaking later, question early on, maybe give some thematic hints of what you'll say in the later round!

What not to do: I generally encourage everyone to avoid the super congress-y lingo – your speech should be accessible to all listeners. Ask yourself, is this something I can give to my 5th Grade sibling and have them easily understand it? If the answer's no, make it more accessible! Also, don't be rude to others – if I think you're rudely cutting people off in cross or being extremely rude/offensive, you won't rank well on my ballot.

That being said, I know y'all got this, and will use your best judgment to perform at your best! Good luck today! I know I can say this on the behalf of all the other judges when I say, we're here to support you, wish only the best for you, and help you to grow for your next tournament! Most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at jimmyjhbaek2@gmail.com!

I did debate for 4 years while I was in high school, primarily congressional debate and world schools debate. I look primarily for quantified data and good uses of rhetoric. Being rude to fellow competitors will not reflect well on you upon my ballot. I fully expect refutation after the first cycle or two of the round. 
When judging Pf or LD, I don’t particularly enjoy spreading unless you know you are speaking clearly.  I am looking for strong arguments and again heavily favor quantified evidence. I highly favor traditional LD. 

Hello!

My name is Samuel Kligman, and I am a freshman at Princeton University. I debated for three years in the West Texas NSDA Circuit. I have broken, made finals, and placed at various UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments in both Congress and Public Forum. While I will list my paradigm below, please note that I prioritize creating a safe and equitable space for debate. Essentially, just treat each other nicely and with respect.

Email: samuelkligman@gmail.com

LD:

If you spread, make sure I can understand you. If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.

Congress:

1) New Arguments-Every piece of legislation is inherently multifaceted with wide-ranging effects. As legislators, it is your duty to your constituents to thoroughly examine every legislation piece. Thus, while I recognize the value and need for an extensive evaluation of certain points of contention during the debate, please do not rehash the same argument. Instead, you should look at new ways to attack an argument and strive to induce an "aha" moment from a (hypothetical) undecided legislator. Moreover, new arguments are also entirely welcome as long as you leave enough time for clash or weave clash into your new argument. I weigh this in an equivalent manner to clash.

TLDR: New arguments are always a good idea, and are even better when used to clash.

2) Clash-Congress is not a speech event, but rather a pure form of debate. In every speech, you should reference other representatives' speeches and deconstruct their arguments. Please devote substantial time to this, and try to fit it into every point of contention.

TLDR: Spend lots of time clashing.

3)Evidence- The more sources, the better. At a minimum, you should have two sources per contention. Moreover, I value reputable and nonpartisan sources the most (Brookings, Urban, .edu, etc....) over slightly biased sources (CATO, Vox, etc...). Basically, just mix it up a bit! Also, use your best judgment on whether a source is outdated or not for I will always prefer newer sources over older ones.

TLDR: Have evidence that is plentiful, diverse, and timely.

4) Questioning- Be active! Never pass on an opportunity to ask a question to the opposing side. That being said, do not repeat a question already brought up or ask a soft question purely for the sake of solidifying your speech. Your questions should be detailed, researched, and thought-provoking. When answering questions, be confident, concise, and answer only what is asked. I will keep a tally of all the questions you ask that I deemed substantial and contributed positively to the round. I will refer to this as a tie-breaker when ranking similar debaters.

TLDR: Do not rehash questions or ask easy questions to solidify your speech. Ask lots of strong questions as much as possible.

5) Structure- Make sure your speech flows from one argument to the next in a clear and fluid manner. Basically, ensure each point does not awkwardly flow into the next. I should always know what point of contention you are on.

6) Introductions- I love smart, eloquent, and concise introductions that match the tone of your overall speech. Your intro should be at most 30 seconds long (at most). In general, I do not like overly humorous introductions as most pieces of legislation have permanent and severe consequences. I love clever introductions that draw upon real-life examples and potential situations that can arise from a piece of legislation with a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. However, a simple introduction with a quote or statistic that is delivered passionately is perfectly fine to me as well Overall, a bad intro can hurt a good speech, but a beautiful intro cannot save a bad speech. I weigh accordingly.

TLDR: Short, clever, and/or passionate intros are the best. Avoid overt humor in general. I weigh intros fairly low.

7) Presentation-To create an equitable space for debate, I do not have too many presentational preferences. I just ask that you speak up, vary your intonation, try not to pace, and have good eye contact. Feel free to physically block or not. Unless your presentation is truly poor and actively detracts from your speech, I do not consider it as much as other factors when ranking and scoring.

TLDR: As long as your presentation does not interfere with your communication, you're good.

8) PO-I will rank a PO in the top 3 if they 1) recognize 12 speeches at least per hour 2) avoid substantial parliamentary errors and 3) keep order.

PF:

•Please weigh throughout the round and not just in summary.

•I flow and will drop arguments not brought up consistently.

•I'm fine with speed, but please do not spread.

•Use crossfire constructively and not as a means to be rude to your opponent.

•I will disregard new arguments brought up in summary and final focus.

•I really like metaphors and figurative language, especially in final focus.

•If one side presents a framework, I will judge the round through the lens of that framework unless properly refuted. If both sides present a framework, I will judge the rounds through the lens of the superior framework.

As someone who has spent five years immersed in Congressional Debate, and dabbled in Public Forum Debate on the side, I am always excited to see fresh perspectives and innovative ideas in the competition.

As a judge, I have a few key criteria that I look for in a successful debate. First and foremost, I believe that warranting and argumentation are essential to building a strong case. You should have a good speech structure and analytical reasoning to support your arguments, and while data can be useful, it shouldn't be your only tool. I suggest using a few cards per point to bolster your argumentation.

In addition to strong argumentation, I believe that interactions are a critical component of a successful debate. Good questions, eye contact, and flexibility in your arguments, including flipping and refuting points made by previous speakers, are all important ways to engage with the main points of the clash throughout the round.

I also have a deep appreciation for the art of rhetoric and the power of a good joke. When done well, humor and thematics can add an extra dimension to a debate, helping participants to connect with their audience and drive home their arguments. However, I must emphasize that any humor or thematics used must be appropriate to the situation and not insensitive in any way.

Finally, I believe that respect for your fellow speakers is crucial in any debate. This includes thanking the chair/PO, knowing your motions, and generally being courteous and professional. However, I caution against going overboard with this in an attempt to win brownie points or pander to judges. At the end of the day, it is the strength of your arguments that will carry you through to victory.

If you have any questions or would like additional feedback, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at raymramin@gmail.com. I am always happy to provide further comments and future assistance to anyone looking to improve their debate skills. Best of luck to all the competitors, and let the battle begin!

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

Content and speaking both matter to me.

-Content:
*clarity - easy to follow

*ref - no drive by refs; your refs need to hold significance and the other competitors arguments actually need to be addressed

*intros - pick a style that works for you, I am not the biggest fan of generic intros that work for any bill

*impacts - weighing is appreciated, consider other arguments when making your impacts, make sure they are meaningful in the context of the round!!

I want to see adaptation and integration to whatever is happening in the round. No rehash!!!! Your speech should work for where it is given - this is very important to me

-Speaking/round presence:

*tonal variation - not every part of your speech should sound the same

*Hand gestures - use them to your advantage

I want to hear you asking questions, making motions, and engaging with the round outside of your speeches. BE MEMORABLE.

Most importantly, don't be disrespectful, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or anything of that sort. It goes without saying.

Hi, I'm Joey. I competed in congressional debate for four years in high school. I am a very content-heavy judge (maybe 90% content and 10% presentation). I rank each bill individually, and average ranks to come to my final ranks.

To me, content is evaluated off on how much you swing the debate in favor of your side during your speech. Imagine me as a judge having an internal meter in my head of what side is winning, you will be scored off on how much you can swing that meter in the course of your speech. Some things this system of evaluation will reward:

-Strategic argumentation: congress has the worst time skew of any event, in that the 11th speaker has 3 minutes to address 30+ minutes of debate. Speeches that strategically group arguments off common links and impacts, and concisely address them together with an offensive response or turn are the most strategic and time-efficient approach to congress, if done correctly this will be a huge deal on your ballot.

-Solid evidence: I am generally not a huge fan of rehashy arguments even when the link work is improved, but top-of-the-line evidence is an exception to this. In particular, high-quality studies that quantify your links are an immediate plus on my ballot.

-Solid Round Integration: Even if your argument is great and very strategic unless you take the extra step to explain to me what makes it strategic and how that affects the round, it's difficult to give you credit for it. Take the time to explicitly implicate your speeches to the round.

Some other notes:

CW Procedure: All POs should have a content warning procedure prepared, and all speakers should give content warnings before a potentially triggering speech. A speech that requires a content warning but is not given one will not reflect well on your ballot.

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Controversially, I am fine with you speaking with an ipad or laptop for accessibility purposes. I believe that being discreetly anti-technology in congress is inequitable, so if this is an accommodation you need it will not harm your ranking. With that being said, you should still not be reliant on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of congress.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down on anything that isn't on the doc

I’m trying to become a fully tab judge robot that evaluates debates with no intervention or bias. I know I am delusional.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc :)

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, I’m here for it

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative world > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot quicker and more technical.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity to say the least.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!