I am not a native English speaker, so speak slowly and speak clearly. I vote for the argument that makes the most sense and who defends their arguments. Please present your facts clearly as the speeches progress. I will not be timing, so time yourselves. Debate is about having fun too, so enjoy the experience.

I'm a parent judge, put me on the chain if you want to spread.

speaks are based on posture and clarity.

K, T, theory, and Phil still go over my head, but if you can connect the dots, I'll vote on it.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging debate (PF and occasionally LD) for about three years.

For debate, most important is that you are able to convince me of your arguments. Use evidence / cards and make sure to tie in those cards to your arguments. Manage your time carefully when you get into detailed explanations / rebuttal. Speed is fine as a long as I am able to understand what you are trying to convey. Be respectful to others. Although this is a tournament, make it a fun. educational experience. Humor is always appreciated !

Here are some guidelines, but I am not going to penalize you if you don't follow these, as long as your arguments are clear and convincing.

1. If you are a novice, you may want to spend, maybe, half a minute in your rebuttal, building on some of your arguments from the constructive speech. Even though its a rebuttal, there may be times when you feel that the constructive did not do justice to one or more argument.

2. If you bring up something interesting during crossfire which you think will help your case, try to bring it up in your next speech, to give it more emphasis.

3. Compare using weighing, impact, etc.. That's a good way to summarize your case.

Again, these are suggestions only. You have practiced hard and long, and don't change your flow to adhere to these.

Adding me to our email chain is not mandatory. You can add me if you like, but I am judging by what I hear from you.
abhijeetc23@gmail.com

Good luck !

I am a policymaker at heart. I will listen to and vote on kritical positions, but I am really looking at policy implications, even of the k. A kritical position ought to be one that you can consistently defend and be a meaningful argument that advances debate, not just a side argument you are running to see what happens. Education and debate on the current topic matter to me.

I think that topicality can be an important issue in the round, but it should only be run when there is ground to debate the violation - not merely as a time suck.

Disads and counterplans can play important roles in the round but should be meaningfully constructed and argued - not just read as a time suck to "see what might stick" (and counterplans need to be competitive).

I listen to arguments and to evidence - I am looking at the debate and argumentation, not just who can read the most/fastest. If you run it, you should be able to explain it, apply it, analyze it, and defend it.

Speed is fine as long as it's clear.

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Hello,

My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.

I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.

If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.

I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact.

I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!

Best of luck!

Christopher (“Chris”) LaVigne/Judging Philospophy

Background: My background is in policy debate. I debated 4 years in high school (1988-1992) and 4 years in college at Wayne State (1993-1997). In college, I debated at the highest levels of NDT policy debate, but that was also a while ago, before law school and before a professional career. I have rejoined the ranks of the judging pool after a long absence because my daughter started doing PF debate. 2017 was my first year judging PF. I was surprised how easy it was to pick up again. Most of this paradigm is geared towards PF since that is usually what I am judging these days. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of my experience will be on the PF side so you might need to explain more if you have me in a policy debate. If I am judging something else you are probably in trouble because I don’t know what I am doing.

Speed: Not generally a problem; clarity is always the concern. I have not seen a single PF debate that I thought was “fast” by what I generally consider to be fast.

Paradigm: Generally a tabula rosa philosophy. The debate belongs to the debaters. I will endeavor not to intervene in any way in the round. I am open to almost any argument that is supported by evidence or sound reason. The team advancing an argument always has the burden of proof. Making an argument and supporting the argument are two different things. I am fine weighing and considering analytical arguments, but I am not likely to vote on substantive arguments that are unsupported with evidence (i.e., “its just obvious that if Trump does this, then he will react by doing something else that is bad”). Such an argument is a substantive position that requires support. It is different than arguing that the internal link evidence is bad for some reason. Those arguments don’t require support as they are identifying gaps in the other side’s proof. I actually think the burden of proof is an important part of argumentation. Once a team carries its burden, its up to the other team to address the argument. At that point I am not going to intervene.

Footnoting: I am NOT a fan of the practice of footnoting in debates, by which I mean the practice of citing an author or an article and generally describing what the article says as opposed to reading a specific piece of evidence from that article. Too often, when I ask to see a piece of evidence, I get an entire article handed to me because the source was footnoted and specific cards were not read. My primary problem with the practice is that it requires me to do too much work. I need to read the article and find the point being advanced, consider the context of the article, what caveats are in the card that were not read, what impact do those have on other arguments. I just don’t think it is very fair to the other team, especially since they do not have a meaningful opportunity to review the “evidence” in the debate when the only thing available is an entire article. I much prefer “cards” where specific text is read in the debate, although I have no problem with highlighting cards to read only the parts you are advancing.

Does the second rebuttal need to answer the arguments advanced by the first rebuttal: It depends. I was asked this question before every PF debate at Plano, so it must be something everyone is thinking about. In policy, this is never really an issue because the “block” is really required to cover all the arguments and arguments not in the block do not get flowed through. The structure of PF is obviously different because there is no block. If the second rebuttal is limited to only rebutting the other side’s case, then responses to the first rebuttal do not come until the second summary, which means new arguments and applications in final focus. I think that makes for a messy debate. I prefer when the second rebuttal covers the critical arguments in the debate, both on the pro and the con. My answer of “it depends” is really case dependent because arguments something relate to one another. Let me just say that if there is a large gulf on the flow where you have not extended arguments or advanced a contention then I am not likely to give it much weight later in the debate. Drops are an important part of the process. Opposing teams should be able to rely on those drops in deciding how to allocate time. If you think an argument is going to be important to the outcome of the debate, I encourage that argument to be advanced in second rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Preferences: It’s your debate, so argue what you want to argue. I try not to let my biases interfere, but inherent bias is certantly present (see comment re footnoting). I prefer arguments with clear link chains, I prefer clash heavy debate, I prefer line-by-line refutation or a general summary of the argument that addresses all the key arguments, I tend to consider flat out drops as admissions (subject only to burden of proof requirements), impacts are always important, but impact fixation is not a panacea (uniqueness, timeframe, link stability, relationship with other advocacy are all important). In policy debate, process disads (politics, political capital, polarization) all make sense, but less so in PF debate where there is no plan and no clear obligation as to “how” any particular advocacy should happen. I will vote on process arguments, but the link needs to be explained and I am probably inclined to listen more to theory arguments that are detriment to the link (if there is no plan, is there still fiat, if there is no plan do we assume action now, later, in the abstract, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use one part of the flow to answer another part. I really cannot stress this enough. Understanding interrelationships between arguments is very impressive. You should probably be able to explain at the top of final focus or 2NR/2AR why you win the debate and be able to explain it quickly. If you are not extending link chains and impacts in the middle of the debate, don’t bother at the end of the debate. Gulfs on the flow with no ink do not serve your interest.

Don’t be a jerk. Talking loud does not mean talking better. Being confident and assertive is fine.

Questions: Just ask.

Good luck.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I’m looking forward to a great debate from both sides, and I would prefer a clear and concise debate with well thought out explanations.  

In Public Forum and Extemp: I value analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!

In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn! 

I do not disclose winners however if you would like feedback I will communicate with you. 

Hi everyone reading this! I am really excited to be judging your rounds, remember that just by being at a tournament you are already learning and improving so good job!

A little about me: I competed in Domestic/Foreign Extemp, Congressional Debate, Informative Speaking, and Policy in high school and my main event was Extemp. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in 2022, TFA state in 2020 and 2022, and the Kentucky Tournament of champions in 2020 all in extemp. I qualified for UIL State in informative speaking in 2021 and 2022. I always loved doing public speaking and extemp really was something I cared a lot about in high school and is something I pride myself on being knowledgable about.

Extemporaneous Speaking: I really like to see speeches with fluency, and not vocal fluency but grammatical fluency. What I mean is that It's nice if you keep talking but if you keep talking and it doesn't make much grammatical sense then I will have to take that into consideration when ranking you. Hand gestures are also a very important thing in a speech and I prefer that they don't seem forced or robotic. It really draws my attention away from you as a speaker and more towards your hands. Confidence is also important! If you aren't confident then it will hinder your speaking ability. Content-wise I really like unique arguments and using sources to back your claims ALWAYS helps. Make sure your arguments make sense and you aren't just spewing out random sources with no real warrants.

Interp/OO/Info: Personally what matters to me in these events is evoking emotion out of me and making me care about your performance or speech. If you can get me hooked then I am hooked, take me on a journey with your interp pieces! I did theatre in high school so I know about basic things like projection/articulation and I expect those to be good. As for OO/Info, I love niche topics, topics that no one picks, or topics that are super unique. I pretty much follow the norms in these events and presentation +confidence are everything!

PF: Your arguments matter and your job is to convince me that your argument is better than the other, I can adapt to most styles of debate although I will be honest and say I am a bit slow sometimes so try not to spread toooooo fast. If I can't understand the content of your argument or I don't even understand it then I won't vote for you. High theory debate if it is done in an appropriate way is fine, but if it is just a mess then I won't vote for you. Don't run racist/sexist/homophobic arguments, I feel like this should be an obvious thing to state but it is nice to clarify. When presenting evidence I prefer if it is specific examples and not just generalities, seriously my brain works a little slow when you just say a general and not a specific thing. I also really like it when things are explained and not just thrown out and hardly ever touched again. It helps a lot for me as a judge to fully understand your argument. If I can understand the argument then great, if I can't then it will make it hard for me to vote for your side. Also Source Wars are something I frown upon ( I really do not want to hear both sides clash back and forth about why their source is better than the other with very little explanation like how the author isn't credible without providing a reason as to why they are are not credible). If you can prove however that a source is genuinely biased and is bogus then I will drop that source from the flow

Congress: What I want most in a round is for it to be dynamic, Congress is meant to be a debate-centric event so I want to see some major clash (especially during the later speeches of a round). I want to be able to leave the round and remember you, preferably in a good way. Be memorable and make me remember you, round presence is super important, especially asking meaningful questions. Please try and get creative if your speeches have generic arguments and we have heard them in that cycle of debate already and change those arguments to shake things up more. It is REALLY helpful to keep that round and cycle of debate alive.

WSD: What I look for in these rounds is for clarity in the argument you are presenting (my opinion towards arguments is similar to PF so look at that part of my paradigm). Use the unique format of WSD and use it to your advantage by finding opportunistic moments to take down your opponent's arguments or prove why your arguments are better. I want to see strategy, be creative in the best way possible and utilize the format of the debate to your advantage.

I am a lay judge and have judged ~4 PF debates.

Organized speeches carry a lot of weight

Bring your evidence – if you are going to repeat your evidence do so in a slightly different manner – be creative not repetitive.

I favor common sense and appreciate logic in your arguments.

Be clear and articulate your points. Do not hesitate to emphasize articulation so that I can easily follow.

I strongly believe that debate is a game--I am not a policy maker--debate should be fun so argue what you want to argue.

For IE Competitors:

I did IX and DX for all four years of high school. I will be taking notes while you speak but I am actively listening. I pay attention to mannerisms and level of professionalism and confidence you carry through your speech. I will provide thorough feedback and I am more than happy to chat with you about your speech!

For LD/PF Competitors: add me on the chain, my email is ias982@my.utexas.edu.

Create an email chain EVERY round, it saves time from calling for evidence, thanks.

PF Paradigm:

• Tech > Truth
• I auto drop for racism/sexism/homophobia or anything that is problematic that can make the debate space unsafe for others.
• Spreading is fine.
• If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.
• Not everything leads to extinction...
• AVOID SOURCE WARS

LD Paradigm:

• I classify myself as a "traditional" debater, with that being said it might take me longer to understand high theory. If you are running K's make link clear in every speech and explain well.
• Tech > Truth
• Complicated and convoluted arguments that are poorly conveyed are worse than simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly.
• I enjoy framework debate.
• Please remain professional and composed--especially during CX. I do not appreciate rude comments between competitors during CX.

As a general blanket statement, I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. If your spreading is muddled and incomprehensible I will stop flowing until I can understand you again.

If you have any questions or advice on your round, simply ask me after the round or email me at: ias982@my.utexas.edu.

Clear voters and impact calculations & be nice.

hey everyone! I'm Sanjitha Yedavalli and I did speech & debate (PF and extemp) all 4 years of high school. I had a decently successful career qualifying to nats and the TOC. That being said, I do flow. Here's a couple of specific things.

1. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

2. PLEASE signpost.

3. Collapse during summaries to make the round cleaner for me. I don't want to hear some really badly extended arguments all the way in final focus.

4. I won't vote off of an argument if the link/warranting isn't cleanly extended through final focus.

5. I try to flow all the card names but I usually just end up flowing the argument only. That being said, don't extend by saying "extend the Smith card", you will need to repeat the actual argument.

6. I'm fine with speed. if you think it's going to be rlly fast, just send me your speech doc before just so we avoid any issues

Speaker points: I generally give pretty high speaks in the 28-30 range. The only reasons I would go any lower is if you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or any other offensive ism. Also, I will dock speaks if you aggressively post round.

Theory: I will probably never vote off of it because I do not understand it well enough.

Kritiks: I'm not accustomed to the lit. If you read a K, make sure you slow down and simplify it so that I understand it. Clearly explain why this matters and why I should be voting off of it. Also highly unlikely that I will vote off of it.

Structural Violence Frameworks/Args: Don't read structural violence arguments without a clear understanding of the oppression that exists. I do not accept a poor understanding of sensitive issues or shallow thinking when it comes to this. Warranting is key. Do not assume my political views because of my looks. Don't use the oppression of others as a tactic to win a debate round. I will call you out if I sense any bs.

I appreciate humor. Use it to your advantage.

Please make crossfire bearable. I don't want to be falling asleep so use humor or be aggressive (but not too aggressive to the point where you're just being mean)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round begins.

If for some reason you need to contact me or want to ask me any additional questions after round, feel free to email me at sanjitha.y@gmail.com