Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

Hello! I'm Andrew, and I'm very excited to start judging this year for debate. I was a speech and debate kid in MN all four years in high school and have coached all four years as well, in addition, I coach PA events and my congressional debate team year-round. I'm so excited to have the opportunity to watch you all engage in debate!

But I know why you're reading this competitor-- you're here to learn what style of debate I look for (or maybe you're like me and you're reading this while prepping for congress in--round in which case, good for you too!)

In congress, I look for the clash, clash, and above all, clash. That being said, if you cannot maintain basic respect for the competition (using ad homonyms, being blatantly bigoted, or shouting over one another) that is a non-starter, and you can expect if you can't be respectful, I will not be rooting for you in the coming speeches. I prefer a well-thought-out argument over a billion sources, but be prepared to back up your information. This is my event of choice, and I love to see how everyone approaches it differently-- be yourself, have fun, and use your voice to keep fighting the good fight.

(side note, please have stuff prepared to go either way so I don't need to sit through 6+ speeches arguing for legislation, or else I will be a little disengaged, and a disengaged judge is a judge who isn't loving the gig they're using their Saturdays on)

Other events I haven't had much experience in, I've seen them on the national stage but otherwise, I may have a TON of questions-- please be patient with me if I mess up something, or cause you or your competitors distress. With that being said, please make sure to formulate your argument and your backing for it, and try your best to make it so that the layperson [me] can understand it.

For PD, I pay special attention to the questioning period-- I think it shows what debate is all about, refutation is a huge part of how I'll rank you in the round.  If I feel like one duo is controlling the question period, or is being more assertive with their claims, that will typically give them a huuuuge lead. As with everything in life, stay respectful. I understand that your time to speak uninterrupted is limited, so it's hard not to spread-- that being said I still prefer quality over quantity. I look forward to this round!

General notes: I love wit/humor but make sure it's well-placed and original-- and this should go without saying but please don't be disrespectful or insulting with your humor. I am a bit unique and I don't think vulgarity should be a no-go for speech/debate, again just ensure you're able to stay classy and polite while doing so. Also, please issue a trigger warning if you are going to mention potentially triggering material, it's just the courtesy of it all. Finally, I'm a psych major with a criminal justice minor, so if you're discussing any of that material I am going to be so super excited!

If you have any questions for me about my paradigm, or just want to say hello, please feel free to ask me, I promise I'm not scary :)

Cheers!

--Andrew Christopherson He/Him/His

Hello! My name is Payton Clark and I'm excited to be judging your round. All you need to know about me is that I'm a former PF debate coach and I love this event.

These are my expectations during rounds:

• I do not disclose the results of my rounds.
• Do not spread. In my experience, this often leads to loss of tone and disorganization. Quality over quantity.
• Be respectful to your opponents.
• Be clear about what contention you are addressing and the impact of your evidence. If the structure of your argument is messy and unclear, it will appear weak and hard to provide feedback on.

If you have any further questions, please ask me prior to the beginning of the round. Thank you!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Hi!

I am a parent of a debater. I am a software developer and business owner.

Some things you should know:
· Be nice and respectful. Try not to talk over each other.
· I will take notes throughout the forum.
· I will not bring any of my personal biases into my role as a judge.

These are the criteria I will judge:
· clarity of case
· clearly stated opening argument
· use of facts and examples
· overall clarity of presented argument
· crossfire - well-constructed questions and answers

Congress: I like to see that you know the game of Congress so if I can tell that you're strategizing (internally, with others in the room, with teammates) I'm gonna be happy. I like debaters that debate. Sounding pretty is good but giving rebuttals and avoiding giving constructive speeches in the middle of the legislation are even better. You should have enough evidence or common sense to speak on either side of the legislation at any point, wasting recesses to write speeches or chide others for not being ready (while you're not offering to speak either) will be criticized.

Public Forum: Give me voters in summary and final focus or give me death! I am a logic-chain judge; if your arguments require me to suspend disbelief or ignore reality then expect them to be dropped from the flow. Behavior within the round matters just as much as performance so please do not be rude to your partner or competitors and try to maintain professionalism for the sake of an efficient round. Speeches that matter the most to me are rebuttals so an organized rebuttal that responds to as much of the competitors case as possible will positively impact my vote overall.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience.

Please slow the pace of your speech so it is easier to follow.

(she/they) Email: lauren.gilli03@gmail.com

(Pre-Round Skimming=Bold)

I have 4-years' debating experience in VPF (mainly trad/lay), various IEs, and 3 years at NSDA Nats for PF/Extemp (once somehow). If you have any questions before/after the round, ask! I like giving help and will give critiques when I can.

~Decorum~

- Don't be an [expletive] in round. If bad enough, give you the lowest speaks possible or the L :)

- I will not stand for prejudiced arguments/rhetoric. I will give opposing team the opportunity to continue, otherwise I will end the round with a fun chat and an L for the offending team, along with lowest possible speaks and a talk with coaches.

- Use trigger/content warnings please. If you have enough foresight to do that, I expect an alt prepared.

- Please no descriptions of sexual assault/in-depth anecdotes of such.

Basics

- Your job is to make my job easy.

- Keep a clear narrative throughout the round- overviews are nice and I love them done well.

- Speak clearly :)- stumbling is fine, I feel you. It doesn't mean you're any less confident.

- In PF, it's not policy- and in LD, stay understandable. No spreading please. If y'all are going way too fast, I will raise my hand.

- For Congress, spreading is absolutely contradictory to the point of the event. Please don't <3

- If, for some god-forsaken reason, you decide to spread against my warning, please send me a case doc. Email above.

- Debate is a competition, yes, but also respect the origins. The point of debate is to persuade, and you can't perform if you are spreading. If you are going too fast, I signal, and you don't slow down... I will flow what I can understand. You have been warned.

- - - I have four points about spreading. That is a sign.

- EVERYONE: SIGNPOST PLEASE <3

- Weigh for me, otherwise I'll do it myself (and that is a threat...mwahaha).

- I generally don't vote on obviously false args. Opposition, at least tell me it's clearly false, give a quick reason before moving on.

- As long as an argument is warranted, have fun with it! I like wacky args if the links are there.

First Speakers (PF)

- Please don't state Cost-Benefit Analysis (a la common sense) as FW in your case. It is useless unless it is used as a response to your opponent's FW.

- Give me (preferably only) voters in summary (collapsing/crystallizing) - again, makes my job easier - line-by-line is rarely summarizing and I will die on this hill. At least throw in voters at the end if you decide to not summarize in your summary

Second Speakers (PF)

- Your success in rebuttal rests on signposting. Tell me where you are! Please!

- For your partner's sake (and your own), start weighing in rebuttal

- Have fun with final focus because it doesn't matter much- The round is won in Rebuttal and Summary! Be sassy but stick to your guns- keep your narrative cohesive w summary

Crossfire/Ex

- It doesn't matter. Keep it clean, no punching. I don't flow during this time unless there is a mic-drop moment. If there is said mic-drop moment, bring it through in later speeches.

- I'm only here for the quotable moments

- finish answer if timer beeps, but not question

Evidence

- I have absolutely no tolerance when it comes to evidence violations. I have had bad experiences in round and will not let an abusive team win. If you want me to call for your/the opp's evi at end of round, tell me. Don't be afraid to stop the round and call a violation if they continue insisting on their evidence being something it's not.

Theory

Very limited experience, outside of a few rounds re: disclosure in LD and one in PF. If you run theory, be clear about your narrative and make it obvious why it should be preferred over substance.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am sorry, I have limited experience in LD judging. I'm teaching myself as much as I can starting '21. but please treat me as a lay judge. Spell it out please. I know next to nothing about LD, so be clear and explain thoroughly. Limit jargon- I competed a lot, but in a very traditional circuit. Glean what you can from the PF paradigm <3

_________________________________

This is debate! The point is to learn and meet people! In the words of my former debate coach, "Do your best. Have fun."

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

I’m P.F. Judge -this being the form I practiced in my High School Days. I’m an Elected City Councilor who uses debate skills in this role, decades later.

I look for clear speech and not speed reading…I ask my debaters to track their own times- as an added style discipline.

I encourage each and everyone to grow in self confidence, research, and public speaking. I expect respect for each other and the collaboration of the Debate.

The strongest argument wins- Let’s Enjoy this Debate Experience Together!

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Do NOT spread!

I was told to write something here

Dont be rude and debate well!

LD judge:

On Speed, your welcome to spread your evidence however, I would prefer you slow the rate of speed for the actual articulation of your argument.

-A participant can likely sway me to their persuasion with strong empirical evidence. While more recent generally is stronger, but depending upon the topic, some evidence/data can be older if tied to a relevant argument.

I prefer qualitative supporting contentions that link to your philosophical framework. I prefer traditional LD.

-I prefer debate rounds that are on the actual resolution...you may note when you feel the opponent is abusive and will be considered...but if your entire argument shifts to become non-topical (aka theory or kritiks)...it will be tough for you to win the round.

PF Judge:

All of the above applies.

My favorite type of PF round is when the competitors argue the pros and cons of the policy proposal imbedded in the resolution.

You can reach on your impacts, but the more practical go further with me in most cases.

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

I am Scott Nesvold, a parent judge with two years of experience judging. Here's a breakdown of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication Style:
- Clear Speaking: I highly value debaters who articulate their arguments clearly and coherently. If I cannot understand your argument, it becomes challenging for me to evaluate it.
- Respectful Tone: Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the round. Rudeness or disrespectful behavior will not be rewarded.

2. Argumentation:
- Roadmaps: I appreciate debaters who provide clear roadmaps at the beginning of their speeches. A well-structured and organized speech will earn you points in my book.
- Signposting: Please make it easy for me to follow your arguments. Clear signposting allows for a smoother flow of the round and helps me in understanding the structure of your case.

3. Debating Style:
- Dislike of Spreading: I am not a fan of spreading. I will be more inclined to vote for debaters who prioritize clarity and depth over speed.
- Flowing Crossfire: I will be actively flowing crossfire, so make sure your points are clear and concise during this time.

4. Tech over Truth:
- I prioritize technical execution over the absolute truth of an argument. Effective weighing, clash, and strategic use of evidence will be crucial in winning my ballot.

Best of luck, and have a great debate!

Hey! My name is Sam Padmanabhan (he/him/his) and I've been in and out of the speech and debate scene in the Upper Midwest for the better part of the last decade. I've competed in and coached most PA and debate events (my main events were Oratory, Congress, IX/USX, and PF).

Email: samuelpadmanabhan@gmail.com

General Debate Things

- Evidence ethics is super important. Don't fabricate or misrepresent evidence

- Be respectful at all times. Any language or arguments that is/are hurtful or hateful (ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) will get you the 20 L or bottom rank. On this note, I don’t mind a little bit of snark but being disrespectful/rude is never okay.

- Be smart → don’t just repeat meaningless cards. I want to see smart analytics that show you understand what you’re saying (this goes for all debate formats)

- Have fun! Debate should be fun :)

Congress

- Top ranks will always go to the students who move the debate forward

- Speeches: quality over quantity

- Presentation is important but argumentation is more important

- Cite complete sources → Author, Publication, Month, Year. Also be cognizant of source quality. I want to see expert analysis, empirical data, etc.

- POs should make the round feel seamless. The ideal PO runs the chamber so well that I don't even know they're there. I will rank good POs very well.

- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments. Especially if you give a later cycle speech, make sure you’re engaging with what’s been said in the round (either by refuting it or crystallizing the issues). New arguments in the 4th or 5th cycle won’t help you. When doing refutation, the preferred style is line by line OR picking the major arguments and arguing at the warrant level.

*Simply offering competing evidence or analytics is not a refutation. Show me why I buy your argument MORE THAN the opposing side*

- Play the game. As a judge and former competitor, I’m observing how you conduct yourself at all times. Getting my top ranks can only happen if you engage in the chamber the entire session. Ask questions, give speeches, make motions. Show me you want to be there.

- Never ever break cycle in front of me. If you give the speech that breaks the cycle, it’s pretty much an automatic 9. I’m expecting preparedness and breaking cycle is a sign you aren’t prepared. Showing up to debate PF with only an Aff case prepared wouldn’t be acceptable so why should it be acceptable in Congress?

- ^That being said, if you save the chamber from breaking cycle, this will give you a major boost. My bar will lower (slightly but still lower) for impromptu speeches that keep the cycle intact

- Don’t waste questioning time by: asking softballs (especially in Varsity), asking only one question, yelling, making statements and not questions, etc.

- The easiest path to my ballot: speak often, play the game, be smart.

Since my program only competes in Congress at the moment, I likely won't be judging PF or LD. If I am judging you in one of these formats, read the below headings. That being said, I'm pretty tabula rasa so just debate how you debate and I will do my best to judge accordingly.

LD (never competed but I have a working knowledge of LD and I've judged it a bit so here are some of my preferences)

- I'm good with speed

- I enjoy a good theory debate but make sure to prove the violation and the interpretation (just spamming buzzwords is not enough here)

- I'm good with Ks as well but make sure the K links in with the argument being made (see above parentheses)

PF (familiar enough with MN and circuit style PF)

- Tech over truth. I'm more flow than lay but persuasiveness is still important

- Don't extend through the ink --> tell me why I prefer your analysis more than your opponent's

- I won't call for cards unless explicitly asked to in round or if there is a major controversy over evidence (avoid these problems by maintaining high evidence ethics)

- Speed is fine but if I can't understand you, it's not ending up on my flow

- Clear signposting is a must

- Give me clear voters and make sure you weigh

- Smart analytics + good evidence >>> just evidence

- Source citations: author + qualifications + publication + month + year (i.e. Dr. Daniel Byman of Georgetown University writing for the Brookings Institution in December 2017)

- The warrant level debate is key

- Notes on Progressive Argumentation: My thoughts on progressive argumentation have really changed over the years. I do see the importance for it in the debate space and thus, if progressive arguments (K's, Theory, CPs, etc.) are run, I will evaluate them. In PF, I don't enjoy seeing progressive args as much but I will still evaluate. That being said, please don't use progressive args purely as a tactical move. If I catch you doing this, it will result in the 20 L. In order to get me to properly evaluate progressive args, you need to prove the connection to the arguments being made (i.e. prove the link to the arg with Ks, the violation and the interps with theory, etc.) --> as long as they are clear/substantiated, I'm willing to listen and evaluate.

As a lay debate judge, I approach each round with an open mind, ready to listen to the arguments presented by both teams without preconceived biases.

I strive to understand the arguments presented by debaters, even if I am not familiar with the topic or terminology. Debaters should prioritize clarity and simplicity in their presentations to ensure that their arguments are accessible to all judges.

Fairness is paramount in debate. I will evaluate each round based on the arguments presented and the evidence provided, without favoring one side over the other based on personal beliefs or preferences.

I expect debaters to treat each other with respect and civility throughout the round. Personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated and may result in penalties.

While style and delivery are important, I prioritize substance in my evaluation of debates. I encourage debaters to focus on presenting clear, logical arguments supported by evidence rather than relying solely on rhetoric or theatrics.

I value debaters who actively engage with their opponents' arguments, addressing key points and providing rebuttals based on logic and evidence. Passive or dismissive responses will not be rewarded in my evaluations.

I understand that not all debaters are experienced or familiar with formal debate formats. I encourage debaters to adapt their arguments and presentations to suit the lay judge's level of understanding, avoiding jargon and complex terminology when possible.

I expect debaters to adhere to the time limits set for each speech and rebuttal. Exceeding these time limits may result in penalties and could affect my evaluation of the round.

4+ years in debate

be kind and respectful

flow judge (some leeway for novices)

time your own (and opponents speeches, knock gently if they are overtime)

Lay parent judge

speak slowly and clearly

will vote for more clear team

don’t be disrespectful in cross

I'm a debate parent and judge, and during the week I'm a software engineer and musician.

I judge rounds based mostly on these things:

• The quality of arguments presented in the initial contentions, including whether primary assertions are backed by evidence.
• My ability to understand you. If you speak too fast, I have a really hard time understanding the argument. If the argument is convoluted, rapid or slurred speech makes it even harder to follow. I will not give as many points to teams who I cannot understand.
• The character of the debaters. I appreciate passionate speeches, but I will deduct points for ad-hominem or otherwise needlessly critical statements.

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

I am a parent-judge. Please speak clearly. I will be more influenced by a few well-stated contentions than a rapid-paced list of thinly supported ones. The more extreme your impacts, the higher your burden to demonstrate the link and that they are reasonable to consider. As an example, if you think I should consider nuclear war, I will need you to show me the connection between it and the proposition, don't just state the conclusion.

Crossfire is important. I am paying attention. It is the best chance you have to expose the weaknesses in your opponents' case.

In summary and final focus, tell me why I should vote for you. This means I want to hear your analysis of the arguments on both sides, how they compare, and why I should give yours more credence and/or weight.

I do not disclose the results of my rounds. Please check my ballot and feedback when it is posted.

Good luck and have fun.

I am open to many styles of debate, but lets be clear, if you speak so fast that I am not able to register your various points or process them together as a cogent argument then I am unable to award points- slow down.

I was a varsity debater for Eagan High School, and I did a public forum. Overall I'm pretty chill with most things.

PUBLIC FORUM GPC TOPIC STUFF:

WE ARE NOT DEBATING TO GET RID OF GPC OR CONTINUE, ITS A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Round stuff:
Collapse towards summary for voters in final focus, makes it easier for me to flow your arguments

I like off-time roadmaps and voters a lot, if you keep my flow clean then I can easily associate winning arguments for you side.

Cross-fire is your time, and I do not write down anything that happened during it. If something round-winning appears in cross, its the job of the debaters to bring it up and use it towards their case. Also if something round winning comes during grand cross it's hard for me to vote on it since it's too late in the round, that is unless it directly ties into an existing argument and it an application of an existing argument already made or clarification of something in the summary speech.

Speed:

I'm fine with faster-paced speech, but doing it abusively (spreading or overwhelming the opponent by providing arguments they will not have time to answer) is not going to win you the round.

Evidence:

Warrant your arguments well with sources. Not carrying sources between speeches means the card will not show up on my flow, so make sure you extend card name/authors. I will prioritize evidence with credible sources versus those based on paraphrasing.

Theory:

I have no experience debating theory, so I wouldn't recommend doing so in your speeches (its PF btw). If you do a well-enough job where you warrant the argument/K/theory/thing properly, then I will allow it.

Speaker points:

You will lose points if you don't properly fill the time in your speeches, act rude/condescending to opponents, or just any form of hate during the round.

**Any mention of nuke war on the student loan topic is an automatic L for me. If both teams bring it up I'll flip a coin and we can end the round early.**

As a student I competed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Mountain View High School (Bend, OR). I stayed on to help coach/judge for a year, and now am assisting with Public Forum at Saint Paul Academy and Summit School.

Paradigms of mine:

1. Clarity over speed - economy of language that allows you to be concise while still making your points will go further in my book than reading something as fast as you can.

2. Logic and reasoning - from the very beginning with your case itself, you should be defining and defending the connections (with evidence) between affirming or negating the resolution and the argument you are making. If the links themselves are weak, it matters less to me how significant your impacts are (ie don't drone on about how detrimental (blank) is if you haven't established that your position leads to/worsens/mitigates/prevents that thing).

3. Engage with your opponents' arguments - Name the pieces you both agree on and use shared stances to then dig deeper on areas of clash, trying to persuade the judge why a similar argument works more in your favor than in your opponents. This should mean that the longer the round goes on, speeches feel more and more representative of engagement happening in the round (and less canned or pre-prepared).

4. Use CX strategically! It is of course important to ask for clarification when necessary, but I love to see a strategic set of questions that feels purposeful and can then be referenced later in the round.

5. As in frisbee, the #1 rule of debate should be "spirit of the game" - be respectful of yourselves, each other, your judge, and have fun!

PF: I am a parent judge, and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I have judged local tournaments and at 2023 NSDA Nationals in Phoenix.

1. Please talk at an understandable speed
2. Avoid debate jargon
3. Most importantly, remember to be polite and respectful to everyone.

Update for Sunvite 2024: This is my 2nd time judging Congress, but I will do my best to be fair. I am not familiar with parliamentary procedure, so I will focus my judging on your speeches. As mentioned above, please talk at an understandable speed. I appreciate a clear structure and signposting.

I'm a parent judge with no prior experience to formal debate until becoming exposed to it as a parent of a debater. However, I really enjoy listening to what you have to say! Bottom line, I'm a lay judge though my daughter says that I'm 'flay'. However much I try, I guarantee novices flow better than me.

If you spread or go too fast, I won't understand you, and that really puts you at a disadvantage. Please make sure you're understandable. K's or Theory at your own risk. I likely won't know what to do with that.

The whole point of debate is mastering the art of persuasion. I try to follow flow but may miss technical details. Don't rely on technicalities to determine if you think you won the round. Persuade me to vote for you. Make me buy your argument. I will vote based off of who holistically convinces me to affirm or negate. If the round gets muddy I go for the path of least resistance. Don't overthink it, just do your best.

I expect teams to keep and police the timing of their own rounds. I'll only interject if I think it's egregious, but poor time management may negatively impact my impression.

Be genuine and show your personality. If you tell a joke that makes me laugh I may give you an extra speaker point.

Low speaker points are generally from low energy, an extreme lack of eloquence or an abundance of ummms and uhhhs.

Abusive behavior, racism, sexism and homophobia etc. will be reported to your coaches, and I reserve the right to drop you on the spot.

Have fun and good luck!

Welcome & Thanks for completing. I enjoy polite and respectful debates. As a student parent you will be happy to know I have a year of experience and a lifetime of accrued knowledge. My goal is to be fair and impartial. Let's have an educational and enjoyable debate. Best wishes, Richard.

I am a parent judge. Please go slower and use comprehensible language. Please email your case documents to venkat.uma@gmail.com so that I can follow along better.

Hi, my name is Minfen, I won’t understand too much jargon and please go slow. I hope you have a good time! Thanks!