I am a parent judge, but I will exclusively base my ballot on the flow. I place the greatest emphasis on rebuttals. You must be able to successfully take apart your opponent's case, while simultaneously responding to what they say about your case. I would like your arguments to be firm and clear, without being able to flow on both sides. Overall, I will choose my ballot based on whoever's argument holds the most weight and has held strong throughout the round. I don't like spreading. Make sure that your speaking is clear and easy to follow. Be sure to always be respectful to everyone in the round. Any disrespectful attitude or approach is an automatic loss and low speaks.

My debate experience includes policy and PFD about 8-10 years ago. I like a very structured debate to allow for easy analysis at the end. Below are my recommendations:

1. Have a framework and continue to extend your framework when the other team presents a counter-framework. I will be judging the debate based on the framework provided in the round.
2. Along the same lines, present definitions and counter-definitions for any contentious language. If two definitions are presented I will most likely side with the broader definition given that it is not abusive. These are short speeches so limit the arguments in this regard.
3. This is more of a preference, but I would like roadmaps to be presented in a contention order rather than "our case their case" especially if there is some overlap in the cases. Either way is fine though if you are used to doing it a certain way.
4. Do an impact calculus (or give me some other reason to vote for you) if that is why you think you deserve to win the round. i.e "Our framework states that number of lives saved is the most important factor in this debate. Our two contentions save up to 10,000 lives and their contentions save none". This makes judging very easy.
5. Lastly, debate is largely about analytical thinking in addition to preparation. Put something on the flow for framework and each contention even if it is purely analytical. Some arguments are just bad, so point that out.

Good luck to everyone competing

I have judged PF before. Clear analysis of the topic and flow is what I prefer. I will appreciate more if you can keep your speech at a medium pace. I am mostly a traditional judge, and if you speak too fast I will not be able to flow what you are saying. Explain your arguments thoroughly because if I don't understand what you're saying it is harder for me to vote on it. Best of luck to all!

Background: I am a 4 year former high school debater competing in the West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and National circuits. I am a strong proponent of a student run round (keeping track of your speech time, prep time etc.) (Please, unless you are the one speaking do not use a timer that is going to create any sound at the end of time.) That being said, the judge is the arbiter of the round. While I encourage discussion and asking questions, please be respectful to both the judges and your competitors. If I am alone judging, I will make the final decision about an given issue, and if I am on a panel of judges, I will yield to their opinions unless my input is needed. During my debate experience I found that nothing bothers me more than disrespectful, condescending, and rude debaters. Now as a judge, being one of the aforementioned competitors is a guaranteed way to lose points and/or the round.

Public Forum:

1. Speed- When it comes to speaking in Public Forum, I have no preference as to how fast you speak. As long as you are coherent, you can speak at whatever speed you'd like. Spreading does not bother me, though I do often find that spreading overall weakens the points you are trying to cover.

2. Argumentation- When it comes to argumentation in public forum, I like when competitors weigh impacts or their contentions. A well developed contention is great, but if I don't understand how it impacts the world I live in, it doesn't hold a lot of weight. I prefer empirical arguments rather than theoretical and hypothetical, though if both teams decide to argue this way, I will not object. I think the stronger side is not only the one that extends their case, but who also refutes their opponents case and their arguments in response to their case. I think the best use of the summary speech is to respond to the opponents rebuttal, and save the key issues and weighing for the final focus. I will vote solely on what you tell me to, but if I am not presented with issues to vote on, my decision will ultimately come down to who wins more individual points.

3. Evidence- Paraphrasing in PF is okay, but you must provide the source. If you don't cite your source, the evidence will only be upheld if the other team doesn't clash or provide different evidence. All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round, but if the context or validity of a source are important to the debate, that evidence should be readily available for me to see after the round has concluded. If your evidence is called for, and you cannot provide it, any arguments that are based on or supported by the evidence will be automatically dropped.

4. Format- Please do signpost(roadmap) before any extemporaneous speeches so I know exactly what I will be listening to. You may do this offtime, so that the time of your speech can focus on content. You may time yourselves, but I will stop flowing once your time is exhausted.

Crossfire- I don't flow cross, but I will listen. If something important is said, be sure to bring it up in a later speech.

If you have any other questions about judging preferences, please ask me before the round starts.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

1. Speaking does not weigh heavily in my decision. That being said: try to be articulate. Enunciate. Make eye contact with the judge. Speak- don't read like you are giving me a book report.
2. Don't card spew. Pick out a few key cards and sources I should weigh. Don't try and overwhelm me with quantity. Note: I may ask to examine the card if it is dispute or a central factor in my decision.
3. If framework is brought up, please address it. Either accept the opponent's framework or tell me why you win under it, tell me why they lose under their own framework, or introduce your own framework and tell me why I should prefer it.
4. Clearly explain warrants, links, and impacts.
5. Provide your evidence to your opponent in an expeditious manner. If you can't provide a specific card, you drop it.
6. Logic is just as important as your cards and sources. Ex: if you are running a contention about why corruption in unions is bad and provide a card that Right to Work Laws will solve this problem that is not enough. Explain to me how that result will logically flow from the RTW law.
7. Don't waste time debating or accusing opponents of violating the NSDA rules of Public Forum Debate. This heavily detracts from the debate. Teams are permitted for what is called a 'general advocacy' and that is not the same thing as a "plan" in Policy Debate per NSDA rules. Furthermore, asking for an example of solvency isn't outside the rules either. It helps provide for a logistical debate and a way to examine the impact of either a pro or con world. If I think a serious ethical violation has occurred, I will report it myself.
8. General housekeeping: you can keep time for your own speeches and prep time. Don't abuse my trust.

If you need clarifications, please ask before the round.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

I have been judging Speech and Debate for 4 years. I have judged almost every event. For congressional debate, I let the presiding officer and Parliamentarian do everything and just judge the speeches. I weigh speech and questioning section equally when considering your rankings. You need to be able to question, defend, or attack your's or other's points effectively.

I don't particularly mind jargon, such as um-ms or aah, but I prefer a slower speech compared to speeches that are padded by nothing. I keep a running note on what is said and who said it. I try to get the most important points down on the flow. I value argument over style, but will consider style if needed.

I'm a traditional judge. I prefer a more conversational style, so “spread” at your own risk. If I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you. I would decide the winner based on who persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in debate jargon or who try to score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

Hello, My name is Raj and I am a parent judge (consider me as a lay judge) who has judged LD and PF in the past. I do take notes but please do not speak too fast and also outline which part of your case you are on (ex. contention 1 of your case or a rebuttal to your opponent). Please do both of these so that I can have clarity on what you are saying. Be respectful to your opponents and most importantly, have fun. Don't worry too much about speaks and do your best. Good luck!

I competed in Lincoln Douglas, Policy and, Public Forum Debate in High School on the Ohio circuit. I have been coaching debate since 2020 on the Ohio circuit as well. I'm pretty much open to everything as long as you are respectful to your opponents.

In any round of debate, I want the competitors to be comfortable and do their best. It is important to me that all competitors treat each other respectfully. A professional decorum must be maintained from the moment you enter the room until you leave the room.

Please feel free to provide an off time road map prior to your speeches.

If you are speaking too fast or not enunciating your words, I may not be able to flow your points. I have no issues with speed but if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to effectively flow your arguments or other key parts of your debate. If this is the case, these items will not carry through the round.

You may keep your own time, but I will be keeping the official time. If I feel you are wrapping up when time is expiring, I will let you finish. If you are not wrapping up, I will give you a signal telling you its time and you will need to wrap up. I will not flow and arguments or points made after time has expired.

Unless you are the person speaking, please do not use a timer that makes noise.

When judging Lincoln Douglas Debate, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your value and value criterion are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and value criterion must clearly connect to your contentions.

For cross examination, I expect all debaters to ask clear and concise questions. If I feel the person answering the questions is deliberately taking a longer time to answer than needed, or anything else that is a tactic to limit the amount of questions asked may impact the final decision.

Calling cards can take significant time away from the debate and can cause our debate to run behind others in the round. This can cause cascading issues for the tournament organizers. I ask that you limit the number of times you call for cards and only seek to verify information that has a significant impact on the debate. Once a card is called, the opposing team will have one (1) minute to produce the information and once presented, the prep time for the team that called for the card will start running. If the opposing team is not able to produce the card in the given time, they will need to drop that card from their case.

Traditional. Prefer a deliberate to moderate speed and less jargon.

Please try your best to make your points clear, crisp, and concise in supporting your argument or rebutting your opponents argument.

PF is not a style contest, yet clarity still is vital to support or rebut the arguments.

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

I did PF for three years for Central Catholic.

I flow and should be able to follow everything. In round I won't vote off of cross ex, though if you do well in cross do include it in your speeches. Essentially if you mention something only in cross-ex I'm not going to flow it through unless you extend on it.

Also on impact weighing on numbers like X lives saved if you vote isn't a way to win. You don't need an exact number to prove your impact has magnitude, and a number alone does not do that. If you're using numbers, explain them don't just say them.

Lastly don't make new arguments in Final Focus for PF. I will not consider them as it's the last speech and is unfair to both sides as they can't respond. Additionally it's really hard to flush out an argument well enough to vote off of in just Final Focus.

Other than that just be respectful. Let each other talk in cross, it's not fun for anyone in the debate when everyone is yelling over each other.

I am a traditional judge. I do not prefer Spreading.

Hey, I'm Shaan. I did PF for 4 years at Jackson High School in Ohio. I'm a senior at OSU. Email: shaanparikh12@gmail.com

NSDAs 2023 Policy:

Keeping it straight up with y'all, I haven't judged a ton of policy. That said, run whatever you want -- I have experience judging every type of argument (theory, Ks). In general, I'm tech > truth and will pretty much vote for anything if you explain it to me. Spread however much you want, but don't spread tags so I can write them down. Really don't like voting for blippy args so if you are going to go for something, go for it and tell me why you win it through framing.

Lord have mercy please do not be racist or any of the -ist things or I'll drop you.

PF:

I don't wanna write it all out so read this:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=85168

https://1drv.ms/w/s!Aga14ZmauE5Rjid5azElNTRhDIce?e=AhPUkA

I am a traditional judge who prefers a more conversational style, so "spread" at your own risk. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you. Try to avoid getting lost in debate jargon, and I strongly prefer traditional LD debate to “K’s” and “theory” arguments. I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round.

1. Philosophy : I approach LD debate from a philosophical standpoint, valuing the clash of ideas and the depth of analysis over mere recitation of evidence.

2. Framework : I believe that the debaters should clearly establish a framework that guides the round. This framework should be logically consistent and serve as a lens through which arguments are evaluated.

3. Clarity : Clarity is paramount. Debaters should articulate their arguments clearly, avoiding jargon or overly complex language.

4. Contention Analysis : I expect debaters to thoroughly analyze each contention presented, weighing its significance, providing impacts, and demonstrating how it relates to the overall debate.

5. Logical Reasoning : Debaters should employ sound logic in constructing their arguments and rebuttals. Logical fallacies should be identified and refuted.

6. Evidence Quality : While evidence is important, I prioritize the quality over quantity. Debaters should provide well-sourced and relevant evidence to support their arguments.

7. Ethical Conduct : I expect debaters to maintain high ethical standards throughout the round, respecting their opponents and the rules of the debate.

8. Flexibility : I appreciate adaptability and flexibility in debaters. They should be able to adjust their strategies based on their opponent's arguments and the flow of the round.

9. Clash : I value substantive clash between debaters. Debaters should engage directly with their opponent's arguments, rather than merely delivering prepared speeches.

10. Decision Criteria : Ultimately, I will base my decision on which debater presents the most persuasive and well-supported arguments within the framework established at the beginning of the round.

Hi, I am a parent. I have judged speech & debate tournaments for the last 3 years with a heavy focus on PF, Parli and Lincoln Douglas debates, but I am not a debater.

PF/PA:

Voting:

I will vote off what you say not how you say it. Please have credible arguments with tangible explanations, essentially, follow common sense. To me, arguments need to be coherent, organized and well articulated. Vague generalities and sweeping generalizations are signs of sloppy thinking.

Off-Time Road Maps:

I am okay with off time road maps, but if you give one, please follow through in the speech.

Speed:

Please speak slowly, clearly, and loudly, if I cannot understand what you're saying, you did not say it.

Timing:

I will keep my own time and will raise a fist in the air to indicate that your speech time is up. I will not flow anything said over time.

Crossfire (PF only):

BE RESPECTFUL IN CROSS FIRE! While I will not vote off of cross-fire I will listen to what you and your opponents say and give feedback based on that.

Evidence:

If you are calling for evidence/cards in PF the card should be readily available for me to review as well should I ask at any point in the round. Prep time should be taken when a card is being read by a team and not while the card is being opened by the other.

Speech

Judged relatively less rounds compared to debates, but love the spontaneity that speech brings !

I'm a freshman at Pitt, and I debated for 4 years in Public Forum Debate. My preferences are simple. You can speak at a faster pace if you like; however, if you have good arguments but do not present them to me in an understandable way, I cannot judge you properly. Speaking elegantly and persuasively is crucial in debate. Additionally, I'd like you to stay professional and civil during crossfires instead of turning them into shouting matches.

I have a few preferences on the flow as well. I have no problem with new weighing mechanisms as long as they don't include new arguments (don't pull out new evidence to support your weighing). Please signpost for me so I know exactly where you're responding. Tell me if you are on their first contention, their rebuttal, etc. Also, please do not simply extend impacts. If you tell me you save 10 million lives, I must know why. Extend the warrants. Finally, I will only take a look at your evidence if you ask me to.

A few general statements as well. If you are going to call out your opponent for not responding to something, and I have it on my flow that they did, that does not reflect well on you. Make sure you aren't just making blind accusations to fill time but that everything you say has meaning behind it. Also, if your argument is offensive, I drop you. No questions asked.

TLDR; I'm pretty much fine with everything except spreading, progressive args, and offensive behavior.

Good luck to you all. Stay serious, but enjoy the round (a few jokes never hurt anyone). If you have any questions at all just ask before the round. I have no problem clarifying.

I am a parent judge who ranks based on clear points and expressions. Please do not rush and talk too fast. Remain respectful and polite throughout the session.