Name: Adnan

Age: 38

College: Lanzhou University

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Postdoc Researcher

1. What types of debate have you participated before (only counting ones that you practice/participate extensively) and how long is your debate career?

I have experience in High School level debate as a debater. In addition, I’m judging the NHSDLC debate tournaments since 2017.

- Others (Please specify) High School level in Pakistan

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

I think that public form debates are better than others because it’s all about collecting the facts, material evidence, and its worth.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast-talking is not bad at all, but if you can convey your message.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness detracts you from your point of view and also will not be useful to win the round. So, politeness is good to be rational.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences

I think framework, rebuttal and summary are important in a debate.

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.

Make sure to grasp all the possible knowledge of all the aspects of the debate topic, which will be helpful to make you confident and win the debate!

Name: Nisbert Mutema

Age: 23

College:  Anhui University of technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): full-time student

1.     What types of debates have you participated in before and how long is your debate career?

Since 2020 I’ve been involved in the following debates:

·       I was a judge in the NSDA debate tournaments

·       I also participated in the SPSDC debate tournaments

·       Participated in the NHDLC tournaments

2.     Sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

From my personal view, I value depth and breadth in the statements that the debaters are making. There is no need for me as a judge to decide which team wins based on my personal beliefs. I believe that debates are mainly evidence-based and also the weight of the impacts on our daily living. The main thing is to be able to support your arguments and weigh them well in order to win. Demonstrating the clash points between the opposing sides and address why/how your side is coming out ahead on that point or how your defense stands up against their arguments. 

3.     How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast-talking is okay I don’t mind it as long as I am hearing what you’re saying. It might be a good thing in a way of maximizing the usage of speech time. But make sure you guys are polite to each other.

Name: USMAN

Age: 35

College: Shanghai JiaoTong University

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): PhD student

1.      What types of debate have you participated before (only counting ones that you practice/participate extensively) and how long is your debate career?

-          Public Forum debate: 4 years of judging experience from 2018-2022 in debating tournament under NHSDLC and also several times judge under TOC.

2.      1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy 

I believe public debate is all about evidence with up-to-date examples and impact weighing of it. But please remember to be polite and humble to your opponent during debate especially during crossfire.  

3.      How do you consider fast-talking?

I don’t mind it at all fast talking as far you are polite to your opponents.

4.      How do you consider aggressiveness 

I am not in favor of aggressiveness; it makes you appear irrational Infront of me 

5.      How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?  Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences

As a judge I give win to those team who had good arguments and shows very good performance in rebuttal and final focus.

6.      Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.

Please make sure you do prepare as much up-to-date research on the debate topic as you can before entering the round. You can only be successful with as much knowledge on the topic as you can. Have fun guys and wish you good luck for debate.

Please try to focus on the effeciency of your outputs,pay attention to the following aspects.

A.Specificity.Judges cannot always fully understand your points,so try to balance your output and specificity.Making judge fully understand your strongest statements is the most important.

B.Emphasis.Judges cannot always flow or remember all you mentioned,appropriate emphasis on winning issues like key rebuttals,evidence,statistics etc. will help a lot.

C.Stress.It is easy to get lost or miss the important information if your voice is monotonous.

Please pay attention to emphasize the importance and give explicit weighings

A.Emphasis on importance.Proving something true isnt the end,instead,only telling judges the importance of the matters ,can we realize how important it is,and how urgent it is,which help to fully realize these points.

B.Weighing.Without explict weighings,especially in arguments about opportunity cost.it is easy to waver if debaters dont tell judge why A outweighs B.Please pay attention to making sure that you win in weighing.

If you speak too fast or uncivil,you will lose me,

If you have great engagement ,focus on logic and are passionate,it will help you stand out!

So,overally,I vote by

A.how many clashes you win.

B.whether you can use fewer clashes to successfully weigh other team's clashes.

anli+debate@u.northwestern.edu for the email chain

Hello! I'm a public forum competitor from the Chinese circuit with over 100 rounds of judging experience, over 150 rounds of competitive experience, and more than three years of experience providing coaching services in one way or another (e.g., preparing research briefs, judging mock debate rounds, etc.). I've collated probably 500,000 words of cards in my debate career. In total, I have more hours in PF debate than my entire Steam library combined.

If you were coached in the Chinese circuit, either read and understand my entire paradigm if you want a fair chance of winning or strike me. It’s your choice.

Concise Version PF 2023

1. If you use clashes you'll probably lose. Winning a clash NEVER equals winning a debate, even if you win more clashes. Instead of using this lazy way, I expect all teams to collapse in summary (how you do this is up to you) which is gonna teach you how to actually critically think instead of just read a script.
2. I also expect all teams to weigh in summary
3. 2nd Rebuttal MUST frontline unless you read theory to justify why not (which skews your time even more, just frontline)
4. I will ignore you in cross
5. If you don't READ (as in, SAY OUT LOUD) the author AND year when introducing your evidence, I'll write on my RFD that you had ZERO evidence. Don't even bothering contesting this, I write down the year and an abbreviation of the author the second you say it so just get good
6. Extensions must have author OR author and year
7. Traditional PF debaters are statistically more likely to lose because of how much I dislike traditional PF debate
8. I can handle spreading but am also open to spreading theory
9. I'll vote on new theory added in second final focus if abuse is severe enough

Before the round starts, you have the option and opportunity to tell me four things, all of which I highly encourage:

1. Flow preference. On paper or digital? If digital, do you want me to do it on Google Sheets and share it with you after the round? If on paper, do you want me to scan the flow and give you a copy after the round? If offline and you want me to flow on paper, will you provide the paper? Keep in mind that my digital flows often have columns dedicated to the issues I have with your arguments, e.g. "doesn't engage", so these are quite useful to see what I interpreted correctly and incorrectly.
2. What color do you want to be on my flow? If I'm flowing on paper, I'll give you options. If digital, you can choose any of 16777216 colors, but keep in mind choosing an unreadable color means I'll drop all of your arguments. I'm serious. If it helps, my spreadsheets are always in light mode, so I encourage choosing a darker color (standard red, blue, green, orange, purple, magenta, black, and cyan are all safe options).
3. If you want feedback after the round, do you want it orally or do you want me to give it to you later via email/text/snail-mail/etc? The latter allows for way more detail but I might... forget some semantics of the round
4. Pronouns

"Pre Theory" (not enforcing these rn)

The following two shells are presumed as true by me before the round even starts, without anyone needing to read them. This is to make the round more inclusive and fair and reduce timesucks. The default voter for all of these shells is "drop the debater."

1. TW theory. Teams must read trigger warnings for arguments that involve violence, r*pe, gore, transphobia, homophobia, etc. including an opt out. I'll exclude broader "death" from this because those are common and rather vague, but if a team believes death should be included as well, you can read theory to implicate this as the case.
2. Pronouns theory. You must use they/them for all debaters and judges in the round unless specified otherwise. If you violate this on accident, simply correct yourself, but if not, I will drop you.

Tech vs Truth

I want to say I'm tech over truth but objectively I'm split 80/20. If you read a crazy argument like (insert your argument), there are two possibilities of how I interpret it:

1. If you have a lot of evidence, even if it's fake, as long as you read the source and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I'll basically take your best case scenario. Once I voted for extinction in elims (and it was a 2-1 for them) because they had reasonable evidence and the opposing engagement with the scenario was inadequate. But if you get caught, you autolose (see evidence ethics).
2. If your links are assertions, expect me to not buy a single one.

Basically, if you have cards, I'm tech over truth; if you read an assertion, I'm truth over tech.

Speech Burdens

1. Second rebuttal must frontline unless you read a theoretical reason why not. Summary must extend defense. Impacts to be weighed must be in both summary and final focus in order for me to consider them, including the entire link chain + all cards. This is to incentivize all debaters to collapse.
2. Final focus must both (1) match summary and (2) have every single impact you want me to vote on. To have an impact doesn't just mean extending the impact, it also includes extending all responses to turns, all links, all internal links, and uniqueness – and all must be carded.
3. If second rebuttal doesn't frontline, your defense is sticky through first summary. In general, all defense (turns, delinks) are sticky until responded to. However, all defense needed to win my vote must be extended into final focus (this generally forces the second speakers to collapse, which is good imo).
4. I will ignore both teams during cross.
5. When you extend impacts in summary, you must extend the entire link chain including all cards.

Evidence Ethics

Super Important. MUST READ. According to the NSDA's official rules found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf: (1) if you add ellipses to your card, you autolose with 0 speaks; (2) if you distort even a single card, even unintentionally, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (3) if you can't produce a card or website for requested evidence, EVEN ONCE, you autolose but I'll still give you speaks; (4) if you clip your card and you get caught, you autolose with 0 speaks. I'll expand on this with two points: (1) if your opponent wants your source and you only send a URL and exclude author/year, you autolose though I'll still give you speaks; (2) if both teams violate these guidelines, the first team to violate them loses. And for the record, (1) if the tournament you're at doesn't let me give you zero speaks, I'll be marking you as having FORFEITED THE ROUND; (2) this applies to ALL DEBATERS, even those who are novices or who did so on accident because the only way you will ever learn from a mistake is confronting it head on.

Pulling from the same link, if you believe your opponent is falsifying or severely cherry-picking evidence, you have the right to stop the round AT ANY TIME, including during an opponent speech. If your opponent is indeed lying about the evidence, the round immediately ends and you win. If your opponent is NOT lying, the round immediately ends and you LOSE.

Three more definitional things:

1. Cards. If you don't read the author and year on first introduction, it's not a card.
2. Extensions. If you don't read the author on extension, it's not an extension.
3. Cites. If you don't send author, year, and place where somebody could find the source (URL, DOI, title of the book), it's not a citation.

Rhetorical Choices

1. If you use abusively harmful rhetoric (e.g., racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist) intentionally, i.e., you knowingly extend it, it's part of your card, tagline, etc., I will autolose you even if your opponent doesn't point it out. If it's by mistake and you realize you've said something wrong and correct it, no penalty.
2. If you say "him or her" or "he or she" or something instead of a gender neutral pronoun I will drop you for it.

Frameworks

1. If your framework doesn't have a warranted justification, I'll drop your framework. If neither side does, I'll use modified CBA: extinction always comes first, structural violence second, and then util.
2. CBA doesn't need a warrant

Theory

Three things to say about theory:

1. Theory ALWAYS comes first. NO exceptions.
2. If your theory shell doesn't have reasonable justifications (in the standards section or somewhere reasonable), I'll consider voting on it, but I'll really hate you for it and I'll dock your speaks.
3. Disclosure. Please do it. But if you read reasons why not, then I don't care.

Speed

I can comprehend spreading and will say "clear" when it's too fast, except when banned by the tournament. If you decide to spread, there are three things to note:

1. If your opponent reads "speed bad" or "speed theory" or "clear theory" or whatever and you don't clear, you're going to lose.
2. You must give me a speech doc if you're going to go above 300wpm otherwise I will visibly roll my eyes at you, stop flowing, and autolose you (the exception is if you're really clear with your reading and I can't tell you're going so fast).
3. In circuits where speech docs/disclosure are uncommon, you alone will bear full consequences if I decide to stop flowing due to speed.

Speaks

I start at a 28.0 and go up or down based on strategic choices. If you extend every impact into summary, expect your speaks to dip. If you collapse better than I ever could, expect your speaks to shoot up. If you want a bonus:

• Bring me a soda (if offline) and you'll get a 0.3 point bonus
• If you physically turn every time you say turn, you get a 0.3 speak bonus
• If your virtual background (if online) is related to, relevant to, and boosts the rhetorical appeal of your argument, you get a 0.3 speak bonus.
• If you refer to every single author (repeat, every single one) with they/them pronouns, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus. My ears are basically tuned to he/him or she/her because of my own identity, so I'll know if you use the wrong pronoun. The exception is if you have additional evidence to show one of your authors' pronoun preferences, such as their Twitter page.
• If your summary or final focus starts with a funny joke, you'll get a 0.3 speak bonus.

The max bonus per round, per speaker is 1.2 points for offline tournaments and 0.9 points for online tournaments. This means you still need good strategy for a 30.

Non-PF Argumentation in PF

The following are my stance(s) on non-traditional arguments/styles commonly seen in LD/CX:

1. Plans. PF rules state that plans are banned, but I... disagree. If the resolution is really broad, I don't see why you can't have a plan. But you need to at least try to prove probability. A super absurd, stupid plan won't fly in PF because that's not what this format is for. So reading "CP: The USFG should give everyone Spotify Premium" just isn't going to convince me. At least try to be topical. Can't say I'm opposed to a plan/cp of something that's actually likely to happen.
2. NIBs. If you can execute it well, sure. Remember not to drop it in summary or final focus.
3. PICs. If the resolution is super wacky like uh uh uh "Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all illicit drugs." and you read a states CP, I really don't see why I shouldn't give you credit for it. As long as you prove (a) your CP is probable, (b) it's exclusive, and (c) it outweighs, I'm not against giving you credit for PICs.
4. Ks. Honestly why not? As long as it's coherent, I'll give you credit for kritiks. However, if you read some niche philosophy K that I'm not familiar with, you risk the entire argument flying over my head, and if that happens, you're taking responsibility.

Finally, I won't memorize the things I write in my paradigm – just know that I'll enforce certain points more often than others and be more lenient depending on the tournament I'm at/round quality/etc. And, if you game my paradigm to win rather than become a better debater, you'll be the one who regrets it.

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

I am attentive listener. I enjoy debates. I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for eye contact. I donot like debate that put their head down and reading all the time. I am fine with the speech speed as long as it's clear and understandable. But if I cannot actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weightage.  Present you arguments with support of good logical flow or updated evidence. I also rate  Crossfire high so do ask well framed questions and answers your opponents questions clearly. Be civilized and let all enjoy the debate.

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
Defining the topic helps provide clarity about what the debate will focus on. It ensures that all
participants understand the subject matter and avoid unnecessary tangents or confusion. Clearly defining the topic ensures that all participants have an equal understanding of what is being discussed, preventing any unfair advantages or misunderstandings.
How important is the framework to your decision making?
Having a solid framework is essential for navigating through the exchange of ideas, supporting positions with evidence, and ultimately influencing my decision as a judge. It provides a roadmap for constructing and delivering compelling arguments, contributing significantly to the overall effectiveness of the debate.
How important is the crossfire in your decision making?
In a debate, crossfire is crucial in my decision-making because it allows for direct communication between participants, which makes it easier to clarify points, offer rebuttals, and assess flexibility and critical thinking abilities in real time. This stage provides the opportunity to refute the arguments of opponents while also requiring quick thinking to fill in any holes or weaknesses in the arguments. Crucially, a debater's performance during crossfire influences my perceptions, impacting the debater's position's overall credibility and persuasiveness. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the decision-making process regarding the strength and conviction of arguments presented.
How important is weighing in your decision making?
Argument weighing, which entails comparing and evaluating arguments according to their persuasiveness, quality, and relevance, is a crucial aspect of decision-making during a debate. Debaters can distinguish between important points, rank the strongest arguments, and successfully respond to counterarguments by using this technique. Argument weighing guides me as a judge in determining the most compelling and convincing side of the debate, influencing the final decision regarding the debate's resolution by assessing the strength of evidence, logical reasoning, and relevance to the topic.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication are crucial in debate decision-making because they have a significant impact on the delivery and reception of arguments. Persuasive speaking improves the persuasiveness and memorability of arguments through powerful rhetoric and skillful language use, which affects how I evaluate the strength of a debater's position. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication, which includes body language, gestures, and demeanor, supplements verbal arguments by conveying confidence, credibility, and sincerity, ultimately shaping decision-makers' perceptions and having a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the debate's outcome.
How fast should students speak?
Students should generally speak clearly and at a pace that is understandable to the other participants in a debate. Even at faster speaking rates, it's critical to preserve coherence and clarity in debate formats that may promote it. The secret is to effectively communicate arguments without compromising their clarity. Students should strive to speak at a speed that will enable them to interact with their opponents, support their arguments, and make themselves understood by the judge. In order to communicate effectively during a debate, one must strike a balance between speed, articulation and clarity

This is Jane. I currently studying finance in Cityu of Macau. I used to be a BP debater and now I am a judge. I've judged for 5 years. In my way of judging logic is more important than the evidence. So I prefer a logic debate instead of evidence attack. I am more likely to vote for a single, well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I don't want u to be a jerk in the crossfire. About the debate style and framework, I really don't care as long as you can express your arguments clearly and logically. Good luck.

Abrar Ahmed

Age: 33 Years

Ph.D. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P.R China

1. I have participated in public forum debate leagues as a judge since 2019.

2. If you present evidence without logic or a strong reference you will lose my vote.

3. I have no problem with fast-talking, until and unless the student speaks clearly. My suggestion for students is to "present updated and to the point about the topic". During the debate, your time is very precious so be more specific.

4. Action speaks louder than words. If you can beat your opponents with logic and evidence, you will have my vote. I do not like if some students use non-verbal reactions when their opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up their hands, rapid "no" shaking).

5. As a judge I judge your whole debate but if your evidence is convincing during rebuttal and summary speech, you can win the vote.

6. As the time is limited for each section, so please manage your speech according to the time.

I was president of both English and Chinese debate team during college, now work in the field of licensing. Started to judge different tournaments for DLC since 2015, both off-line and online.

In terms of preference, I value clear presentation and direct logic, simply repeating how strong your cases is not helping you to win, identify your opponent's logical flaw then rebut or defend analytically, ideally to connect with your prepared evidence, or to rebut basing on the real clash. As for speakers point, being kind and clear is the key. And please, don't yell.

Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

Have some background knowledge on the college topic through research + judging. Have a minimal background on the high school topic. Explanation in both, particularly at the beginning of the season, is always helpful.

I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win.

Line by line is appreciated and minimizes intervention I must make after the round. Further, the more granular the debate (like debates over particular terms of art, specific details, etc.) and/or the closer the debate is, the more I'll look to evidence to break ties. Please engage in evidence comparison to limit the degree of intervention I have to do in a debate.

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

Ultimately, do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

Relatively straightforward. If you’re aff, tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

Will presume judge kick

In terms of most theory issues: literature oftentimes determines how I evaluate the extent of abusiveness of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes are good and persuasive, but also not an excuse to not read cards

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible, but not the most preferable strategy

Ks

This is where most of my debate experience is in

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward.

I've found often that many neg framework interpretations don't generate a lot of offense in terms of grander strategy because they give the aff too much leeway. I've found that I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable, but that certainly doesn't require "topical action" which I think is up for debate both on what topical constitutes as well as whether being topical is desirable

K Affs probably get a perm, but

1. I'm extremely open to adjusting the parameters of how perms should function in these debates and
2. I think I have a higher threshold of aff explanation for how any permutation functions with a competing kritik/counterplan/advocacy.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact in front of me based on debating. The most persuasive fairness arguments I’ve heard are ones paired with a discussion of how it implicates debate as an educational activity/more education-related impacts as well as how fair norms are necessary and mutually beneficial for both teams. In these debates I typically view fairness as a tiebreaker for the negative but can be convinced that it is more important than that if heavy investment is done.

TVAs should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links and framework DAs. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient. Further, TVAs and Read On Neg/Switch Side have varying degrees of value based on aff offense against T which should affect how you deploy them by the 2NR (if not earlier).

Performances are great, but they're greater when they have explanations and develop organically as the debate continues

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments along the lines of “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

I usually look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

*Updates for NDT 2022

Who are you affiliated with?

I coach for Harvard. I attended UMKC.

Email for chain?

davonscope@gmail.com & harvard.debate@gmail.com

Do I care what you do?

I do not personally care about what you do stylistically.

Should I pref you?/How do you vote in clash debates? (Because that's honestly the section of paradigms people care about these days)

Whatever the debaters at hand find important in regards to framing, I will decide the debate through that lens. If the debaters happen to disagree on what lens I should prefer (because that never happens), then I will compare the pros and cons of both lenses and make a decision on which is preferable and thus filter the debate through that lens. In helping me make that decision in a way that benefits you, levy significant offense against the opposing team's lens, while supplementing your own with some defense and net-benefits. I'll give you a hint; education is the impact/net-benefit/tie-breaker. For me, It will rarely be fairness, ground, truth-testing, etc. I have and will likely always see those as internal-links to a much larger discussion about education. Which begs the question, "how do I view debate?" Debate is clearly a game. But this game grounds itself in a degree of realism that finds its value tethered to its capacity for us to maneuver within the world the game is set to reflect. Basically, debate is a game, life is a game, and we play this debate game because we think it can inform how we go about playing the life game. So yeah, sounds like education to me.

*Other things

I flow. I won't be convinced not to. How I flow is up for debate.

Line-by-line is important but I find myself pondering the big issues often. Comprehensive overviews/argument framing with embedded clash can honestly do a lot for me. But the key word is comprehensive. In many rounds, debaters lose me when they prioritize checking off arguments on the flow and not paying particular attention to what arguments matter to a decision.

I value evidence comparison deeply. On important questions that have not been adequately resolved by debaters, I will read the evidence, including the un-underlined components to come to a greater understanding/receive necessary context for the writers intent. This has often shaded my evaluation of arguments made in relation to evidence read, moreso negatively for the reader. To insure this doesn't negatively affect you, be sure to flesh out that card...give me the context, give your interpretation of its impact on the topic at hand, and put it in conversation with the other team's evidence beyond the simple "they said, we said" formula. Display an understanding of why your evidence says what it says, its qualities, etc, and I will be more inclined to accept your description of things. I want to evaluate your arguments, not read cards at the end of the round to fill-in what your arguments are. This also means in my mind the less cards read, the better this is achieved.

I realize my points have been categorically low, and will attempt to rectify this by sitting closer to the perceived average. That said, points I give are based on my evaluation of things only. Points are the few things I have control over in a round, and reserve the right to assign them as I see fit.

Ask a question if you desire an answer not covered by the above statements.

Wake Forest '21, Working at Harvard

Please add to the email chain: rubycklein@gmail.com & harvard.debate@gmail.com

Tech and execution matter most, presuming there are warrants and implications for your arguments.

I like to read through cards closely, so if I’m taking a while, that’s probably why.

I think the aff gets to weigh their case vs. Ks, so protracted debates about framework are rarely important. I would much prefer aff-specific link debating or more about your alternative.

Neg framework impacts about clash and the value of research are generally the most persuasive to me, but if your thing is something else, that’s fine, too. Clearly conveying why your impact matters and how it interacts with aff offense is most essential.

Turning the case is way more likely with cards. And, I really enjoy and care about turns case arguments.

International, consult, condition, etc. CPs are likely bad, but a specific advocate about the plan could help.

If the neg tells me to, my presumption is to kick the CP.

Neg-leaning on conditionality.

Inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s to provide context and you fully explain what it reveals.  

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, Cicero Project, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University.

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

Harvard Update

I have had a recent spiritual realization. I have faith that there is no truth without wisdom. When making decisions I find that wisdom>tech>truth: divine and spiritual understandings seem inseparable from any ethical paradigm including intuition, consequentialism, intention etc. thus argumentation that does not center religious or divine morality will not be rewarded.

Lexington Update

- i do not want to judge online debates when there is an in person alternative - in college berhe and i deadass strike all online judges - my computer is egregious as i'm using a very old laptop and it can barely handle gmail and overheats when i use zoom - so please strike me if you're online.

- if you feel you must pref me despite competing online i do understand as someone who has to finesse for funding and has debated sick trust me i resonate - of course i still value fair competition above all else and of course i will not punish you with speaks or the ballot if you pref me online - but i will be very grumpy if you choose to pref me despite my objections - if i am judging you online please refer to the section called "online debate".

- this is my first tournament on this topic and i haven't judged policy since last years TOC - and also this is my first year judging where i know close to little about the high school topic - i know nothing about the camp affs, common arguments, side bias, T wordings, accepted norms etc. - for what it's worth i will say i'm majoring in finance and i'm quite knowledgeable about economics plus i've coached on a PF topic about UBI and i've researched and debated an aff about fiscal redistribution - if that matters to you or your coaches you should pref accordingly.

- if you're interested in debating in college in the northeast feel free to let me know or ask questions :)

PF Paradigm
- everything applies from policy paradigm (the top level part mostly)

i consider myself flay funnily enough - but to you i'm probably a flow judge - I do policy - but taught some PF - im ok with speed - ok with theory - ok with k's - plus down for (well executed) trolling

misc things that are weird about me in PF:

• down for paraphrasing - but i believe down with paraphrasing
• i would prefer that people do speech docs than waste time in ev checks
• i flow crossfire
• i actually treat grand cross and the summary as one speech - in my head its the 1ar in policy
• i care about extending 'complete' args into the FF
• i care less than most about terminalization but im lowkey a fan - numbers are cool
• i never understood pf judges deciding based on the number of clashes (see jamie zhang) - i resolve debates based on offense/defense and what seems most important - i dont really go clash by clash to resolve debates - i also default to what i consider judge instruction - (see policy paradigm)

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and that I'm decent for theory generally respectively - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Emory Update - Policy

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K Stuff -

Kaffs/Framework

- I know people pref based on this so TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

T

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

- I am unfamiliar with the current high school topic.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same e.g. I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap. There is not zero risk that Shree wins the Olympic 200 meter dash in flip flops, however there is very negligible risk of such an event.

- great evidence > good analytics > poor evidence

CPs

- I used to not judge kick unless instructed to do so - I accidentally did one time though. Eh probably neg leaning if you tell me to.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I personally care much less abt perf con than most.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other 'abusive' CPs. I generally find it easiest to vote aff in these debates if you have a process advantage. However, most good aff teams can also handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I am lowkey not with the hype around going for tricky perms against process CP and I'm not enchanted with tricky perms as most and I prefer just voting on theory. I am generally compelled that things like intrinsic perms are bad, but at the same time that certain process cp's are bad.

Misc

- I believe meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical! - this argument has gone underground - if you know you know.

- Don't make debate unsafe. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

T:

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

PF

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge