hi! i am a senior at edmond memorial and i've been debating for three years. i do public forum and am pf captain at my school, but i love lincoln douglass and definitely know the difference, how to judge it, etc.

PF:

framework- i prefer a framework, and will judge based off it, if it's argued correctly. ido ask that you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. iexpect that if one team does not provide a framework they will accept their opponents and carry it through the round. if you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours. you will probably not win a round on FW alone but it is very important in the debate.

speaking- i am ok with spreading but if ican't understand what you're saying, iwon't flow it. you need to be clear. i prefer signposting during speeches, otherwise the round can become unorganized. I don't like it when debaters are aggressive in round, it doesn't impress me. i will vote you down for being abusive. i ask for respectful, clean rounds. if you're mean to your opponent, you'll get low speaks. you don't have to be abusive to win a round, if you are a good debater.

cards- i will never really ask for a card, that's the debaters job. unless i think someone is straight up lying. if a debater makes a claim and their opponent doesn't ask them for a card, then call them on not having one/ bad evidence then its true in that round. if you and your opponent each have cards that say opposite things, check sources, etc. and tell me why ishould prefer your card over your opponent's.

impacts- i will vote primarily on impacts. please bring them up, weigh them, and extend them throughout the round.

cross examination- do not argue or be super aggressive. ask for follow up questions. let your opponent ask questions. ido not flow cross, if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

if an argument is dropped by your opponents, iwill weigh it. However, it's important that you bring up that they dropped your argument and why it's important.

NOTHING is common knowledge, but if a statement isn't refuted by your opponents, i'll flow it as fact.

LD:

same paradigms as PF but, ihave very minimal experience in LD. i'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

value/criteria- This is extremely important in an LD round, I will vote mostly on value/criteria

same preferences with signposting, carrying impacts through the round, cards, dropping arguments, speaking, cross x, and not being aggressive.

One of my biggest things is being respectful and kind. I’m not cool with a team being rude or abusive. And make sure you extend arguments all the way through every speech. Continue to remind me why you have won.Have fun!

TECH1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TRUTH

SLOW1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10SPEED

lincoln douglas

traditional judge. did ld for 4 years during high school.

framework is a big part of ld and its what makes it interesting and fun to debate. clash with ur framework is highly encouraged because you have a higher chance of winning.

show how/why ur arguments matter. do not just say "extend/flow to my side" as I will not do either. if you cant show why ur arg matters I won't flow them through.

please be clear. I'm fine with a bit of speed but If I cant hear u I cant flow and give weigh to ur arguments.

not a fan of progressive and theory debate. if u have another case please use, because I probably won't know what ur talking about.

above all please be kind and respectful towards ur opponent. u could have 100% won but if u say something rude/racist/disrespectful to your opponent I will mark you down immediately.

public forum

not too familiar with pf but if you can show how ur evidence is better and more impactful than ur opponents you will win.

History- I debated in Public Forum for two years, including the district, regional, and state tournaments. I also have some experience in extemp and congressional debate.

Paradigms- I am fine with, and encourage spreading, and enjoy a little bit of clash in CX, now don't be rude and abusive, but a little debate is what this is all about. I will weigh based on the framework/value debate so don't drop that. I also love numbers! I vote off of impact weighing, and numbers help me with that significantly. Any argument not attacked does get dropped, but please bring up the fact it did or I will disregard it.

PF: I’m tech over truth and will flow any argument no matter how crazy it may seem. With that being said, it needs to be convincing enough on your end. If you use framework tell me why I should prefer your framework and why your contentions flow under your it. If neither team convince me on their framework, I will default to cost-benefit analysis. I’m fairly confident with any speed, but if you’re speaking so fast that you lack clarity then you should probably slow down. I will vote based mostly on impacts so please please please impact weigh at the end of every speech. I do not flow crossfire. That is time for you, not for me, so if something important is brought up during cross, make sure to bring it up in your next speech.

LD: Pretty much the same thing but swap framework with value/value-criterion. Explain how your criterion links to your value and why your value is more important than the opposition. Also, explain how your case flows across both values.

email: mikaylacfair@gmail.com

I competed in PF all four years of high school and went to nationals in PF. I also did OO and FEX for a year each. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate, but I'm also learning policy debate in hopes of switching soon. I've also judged LD. I'm also currently an international relations major at Tulane.

Paradigm:

General- Please be respectful in and out of round. If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic to your opponent or to me, I will vote you down.

Public Forum-

• Please do not argue in cross-examination, and bring up anything important from cross in your next speech as I don't flow cross.
• Signpost (tell me what you're addressing on the flow).
• Almost nothing should be considered common knowledge, you need to have evidence for your empirics, please do not assume I know all the details of one really specific event.
• Ks/Theory: So long as you properly link it, I'm okay with it. I will warn you it is difficult to do K arguments well with pf time constraints so just be prepared for that.
• Framework: Warrant your framework and weigh it against your opponent's fw. Everything should flow through this lens so be sure to link it back into your speeches.
• Evidence Integrity: Please cite all your sources (last name & year). If you cite the same source twice please make it clear that this is a different citation of the same source. Do not power-tag evidence. Refrain from paraphrasing and if you do, it better say the same thing as your card and you better clarify that you are paraphrasing. You should be referencing fairly credible people.
• Email chain/doc: Please add to me any email chains or docs you have. I won't pay much attention to the cards in those docs unless they are repetitively contested and I'm told to reference it.
• No email chain/doc: Unless a card is readily disputed back and forth, I will not call for cards at the end of the round unless one team tells me to.
• Please run reasonable arguments. I know it can be fun to do something kind of outlandish, but just be careful. Honestly, I'm okay with it so long as you explain it well and link it well.
• In general, I'm tech over truth. The flow matters. Functionality matters, don't drop anything, especially your own arguments.
• Spreading: Personally, I'm fine with SOME spreading in PF just because time constraints suck, but also everyone in round needs to understand you. You shouldn't be spreading as a means of abuse.
• tech over truth
• Please bring up framing every speech. Tell me why you won the round, not just the individual arguments.

Lincoln Douglas-

• Please give proper backing for your value criterion and repetitively bring it up throughout the round.
• The value proven to be most moral is the one I will prefer for the round so make sure you uphold this, and better yet, make sure you uphold both values in your case.
• Please impact weigh. Sometimes arguments in LD get really broad, but it's important you apply those impacts in the round (aka. tell me what they mean in context, give empirics, numerics, etc.)
• Ks/Theory: I'm totally okay with these. Link it well and make it loud. If you're running a K, this should almost always be the center of your debate and the first and last thing you discuss. At the same time, please don't ignore the case debate.
• Evidence Integrity: Please use reliable sources and don't power tag anything. If you cite a source twice with two different cut portions please make it clear which is which or have a speech doc that can do the same. If you paraphrase anything please make sure you're actually
• tech over truth
• Please explain why you are overall winning the round, not just individual arguments. This should be connected to the value debate and general framing of the round.

Lastly, I understand that debate can be stressful and sometimes the decision of a judge may seem unreasonable or unclear, so if you have any questions about my decision/comments feel free to email me at mikaylacfair@gmail.com

Overall, spark clash and have fun!

I’m cool with whatever. Run your case however you think it’ll be best.

I’ll vote for who I think wins.

Open to squirrelly cases

More likely to judge on clear and evident lines of logic

Prefer clear voters

If you don’t say it, it doesn’t count

Hello!
I did LD for all of high school and I'm very excited to be your judge!

Progressive/Traditional
I prefer traditional debate, but I will not vote for you down for simply running progressive arguments. I can follow whatever you decide to run. Just make sure to be clear in what you are saying and be organized in your speeches.

Spreading
I can follow spreading, just make sure to be clear. Things will be dropped on the flow if I cannot understand you. Speaking is very important in debate and so no matter how fast you decide to talk, make sure you are clear and organized.

Framework
I will weigh heavily on framework. Show me how your framework outweighs your opponent's. Framework is a foundational part of LD and so there needs to be time spent on it.

Impacts
I will also weigh heavily on impacts. Tell me what is the impact of your case, as well as the negative impact of your opponents. I need to know why what you are arguing matters.

Cross Examination
Cross ex is a crucial part of the round, just make sure you are kind to your opponent. Be firm, but not aggressive. You will lose speaker points for being too aggressive or not letting your opponent answer your questions.

PF
In PF, I look for similar things. Weigh heavily on your impacts and be concise. Extend your arguments and be polite in cross examination. I can handle anything progressive in PF, just make sure to maintain good speaking and argumentation. Tell me why you won the round.

The most important thing is that you have fun and that you show me what you can do as a debater. I have a deep appreciation for debate and so I'm very happy to have the opportunity to judge. If you ever have any questions about a round or want more feedback, my email is sjanda0703@gmail.com Good luck :)

I did PF debate for 4 years in high school, qualified to both State and Nationals. I now work as a debate coach at Westmoore. - That being said I am familiar with most types of argumentation and styles of debate.

I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable. I don't like to have to do the weighing on my own at the end of a debate, it should be clear what the round is weighed on. If you can't prove the impact calculus of your argument or why your argument matters, chances are I will not buy it.

Speed. I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking. I prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest. And please put me in the email chain, katelynmakjohnson@gmail.com. The faster you go the more you glitch (I really don't care if you go fast, it just happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would be in your best interest to send a speech doc

Argumentation. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Please don't ask me to time. In order to give you the best feedback and round I'd rather you timed yourselves, instead of me giving you time signals or calls for prep. 

Thank you and good luck!

I'd love to be on the Email Chain- matthewlauwcxdebate@gmail.com

I'm a Varsity Debater and Crossings Christian School and have debated for 6 Years and this is my 3rd year in Varsity

I debate at TOC qualifying tournaments

Novice

Impact Calc ! Impact Calc ! Impact Calc!

Personal Preferences

Depth>Breath

Clarity>Speed

Please be Nice, you can be smart without being rude

Every Argument needs a warrant, claim, and impact. I'm not going to do the work for you (unless I have to)

" The more work I do, the more my decision is up in the air for both teams. I really try and judge debates how the debaters tell me how I should judge the debate. Absent that judge instructions I will default to whatever little framing there is in the round and come up with a decision from there but you don't want this to happen because I might not see the debate in the exact same way as you so you should tell me why I should see things your way. If you want me or any judge to vote a specific way, then my RFD should line up a lot with your 2R. Also I'm more tech over truth but will only give dropped args a the full weight of the arg explained.- Kyle Wendland "

K's

Familiar with most K's

They're fine.

K Aff's

Let's just say you got a lot of work to do...

but I understand the basics of K Aff's and in fact ran one for a little bit but if you run one I'm already neg leaning. Ya gotta do a lot on Framework

Policy

My partner and I are a flex team so don't mind it. Please extend your impacts !

Big on Evidence analysis and making it a cohesive story

Speed

Clarity>Speed- I'll tell you clear if I can't hear the tag clearly

Theory/FW/T

I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will vote on FW if won, but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting the theory of power is a good strat for me.

T isn't my favorite but if an Aff is blatantly untopical I'll vote on it

I debated PF for 2 years and have done speech events. Even though I am a PF debater, I understand the difference between PF and LD. I have experience judging PF and LD.

PF:

Framework- I am okay with framework and will flow it across ONLY if you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. If you agree with their framework, don't just say, 'I agree' - turn it. If you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours. You will not win a round on FW alone but it is important in the debate.

Speaking- I am ok with spreading but if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. You need to be clear. I don't care if you're aggressive, but there is a clear difference between being assertive and being abusive. Don't be mean to your opponents or you'll get low speaks. You don't have to be mean to win a round. Not all rounds need to be serious. I prefer signposting during speeches, otherwise, the round can become unorganized.

Cards: I will call for cards if I’m confused about it or if I think you aren’t truthful. The only important thing about cards is I will ALWAYS prefer cards with author credentials, they tell me who has the better source. If you and your opponent each have cards that say the opposite thing, tell me why I should prefer your card over your opponent's.

Impacts: I will vote primarily on impacts. Please bring them up and extend them throughout the round.

Cross Examination: Please be respectful. Do not argue or be super aggressive. Ask for follow up questions. Also, let your opponent ask questions. I do not flow cross, if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

If an argument is dropped by your opponents, I will weigh it. However, it's important that you bring up that they dropped your argument and why it's important.

NOTHING is common knowledge, but if a statement isn't refuted by your opponents, I'll flow it as fact.

I won't really call for cards unless I think I need to do so.

LD:

Same paradigm as PF, but, I have very minimal experience in LD. I'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

Value/criteria- This is extremely important in an LD round, I will vote mostly on value/value criteria

experience: This is my 4th year doing pf and I have qualified for state and broke at districts. However, I'm not very well versed in LD but I get the gist so it should be okay.

paradigms: You can speak as fast as you want as long as it isn't high level policy spreading. I don't care about framework as much as other judges, and if neither side clearly wins the framework debate I'll just do cost-benefit analysis. Try to do a good line by line debate and not drop arguments.

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

Garrett Martin

Two Rs two Ts

He/him

Have debated for 5 years at Crossings Christian—

Add me on the email chain @garrettmartindebate@gmail.com

Accomplishments:

62 Fortnite wins (16 wins in solo)

Used to be able to solve a Rubik's Cube

Ate the level 4 Nashbirds spicy hot chicken sandwich

I've had a full beard since junior year

6000+ trophies in Clash Royale (I'm a beast)

Can almost touch my toes when stretching

I know every Pop Smoke song

My Grandma said I'm handsome

Hardcore carnivore (save the plants)

Basic-

Obvious tech over truth

Clarity over speed; though I can handle speed, just don’t speed through analytics

Usually give decently high speaks if it’s pleasant to hear, persuasive, and has a comical element to it

I just bought some land in Scotland for a charity, so if you refer to me as “Lord” or “Lord Jeffery the 4^th” I will give you +0.2 speaks.

Overall, I’m a flex debater. I’m a weird breed between a K Hack and a Policy Dweeb—so I'm willing to vote on both. So run whatever you like to run, I’m down.

Im familiar with most-all ks except for certain identity Ks. The most I know about antiblackness is from a friend, but I am definitely no expert.

Policy Affs:

Got to love them, the foundation of debate. Just make sure you provide a clear story of how the aff works and EXPLAIN your extinction scenario. I’m more of a stickler than others, but for you to access extinction, you must provide a clear-cut analysis of how that’s going to happen. Extinction is thrown around a lot in debates these days but bears no weight…. please explain.

Nontopical Affs:

Mixed feelings throughout the community, but they chill. I like participating in and judging KvK debates and find them fascinating. Also, love T on the neg. Framework is always good. Aff - Make sure you thoroughly know how to debate a k on the aff—don’t make this a wash.

Impact Calc

Do it. Your impact, the other teams, how they relate to each other’s, which one is worse, etc. I hate being a judge and having to decide for myself which one is worse. It will win you rounds, so please do it. Especially you novices where clash can be nonexistent or when it's just a complete mess on the flow---impact calc looks very tempting to vote on when there has to be a ton of deciphering to decide the round.

Offcases

DA’s

Great, love voting on them, remember to explain your exact scenario of how the aff will cause the impact. Uq, link, brink, impact. Otherwise, I think they are the “bread and butter” of debate and are essential for the neg.

CP’s

Going be honest, probably the weakest link in my arsenal. I believe they can be pretty abusive sometimes, so If your read agent counterplans and process cps, you will have to make a good argument about how you didn’t cause some type of abuse in the round. Otherwise, they chill. Especially advantage cps. I naturally always default to judgekicking a CP if I think it's bad in the 2nr.

K’s

Love K’s—one of my favorite arguments. Ever since I ran Agamben 8^th grade year, I’ve been a sucker for different Kritikal arguments. That being said, I have a high standard of how its run, reading blocks without engaging the aff’s arguments will NOT win you the round. Make sure to contextualize your links to the aff specifically and not to the status quo. That’s lame. Also make sure to understand what your reading, it really does show in CX, and I will deck speaks.

Also, for FW, make sure it’s not a wash lol.

Theory

Usually a wash reading huge blocks in the rebuttals. I do understand the utility of them though, especially on the aff. Best theory args imo: Condo, Perfcon, Multiplanks bad, Process CPs bad, Conventions CPs Bad. All the other ones are kinda wack. Respect the YOLO Fullsend in the 2ar lol. Been there.

T

Hate T debates, but I will vote for them. Please clash with each other’s interps and standards.

Final Note: don’t read death or suicide good. Never have seen this in a round and let's keep it that way.

I like to see a professional atmosphere in the debate round. I don't particularly appreciate spreading within the round, if you are spreading and it is difficult for me to understand your arguments, let alone your opponent to understand your arguments then it is nearly impossible for me to weigh that argument that you spent less than 30 seconds addressing. Please do not degrade one another in the round, remember that this is a friendly debate round and you are only competitors not enemies.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Framework: I weigh the highest moralistic argumentation found within the framework. As Lincoln Douglas is a morality-based debate platform you must provide the moral or philosophical argument as to why your case wins against your opponents' case.

Contentions: I weigh the argument being made and the subsequent evidence provided as the second highest. If the morality of the round is tied then I am going to side with who provides the best arguments with evidence and impact.

Drops: Whenever you drop an argument that argument will automatically flow through and I will then weigh that argument. If you start addressing an argument that you have previously dropped that is abusive and will not be recognized in round, and if it happens multiple times it will be weighed against you in round.

̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿

Proud mother of 8

Debating at Norman North with the legend Grant Goering

National Qualifier

Please explain to me what a convention is, I hate lack of explanations they make me very sad :(

One additional speaker point if you follow Morgan Russell on TikTok (Feminist4n6)

Da Greek Freek

̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿

Proud father of a 2/yo

lonely debating at Norman north in 2018

two time national competitor

i love mega night

truth=tech because you can’t have tech without believing in the truth of science

Please explain to me what a convention is, I hate lack of explanations they make me very sad :(

I give each argument a score of 1 to 100. From there your opponents rebuttals can bring it down, but remember, not all arguments start at 100. I like to use what’s called the cool guy score to judge. Here is a formula sheet to calculate your speaker points and winning constant.P is personality score. n is number of arguments above 50 points. K is spreading constant. C is cool guy score.
C = n(p)/10+k(s)/10

s = 25+ (k(p)^2)/100

lders, please do not debate framework if you and your opponents frameworks essentially mean the same thing. If not, then PLEASE debate framework. Give me a lens with which to weight the round. If you doing give me that I will have to default to picking my own, and you never know which that one is.

I have a fairly short attention span so keeping me interested would definitely help you.

One additional speaker point if you follow Morgan Russell on TikTok (Feminist4n6)

PS Big Questions is objectively the best form of debat

DO NOT MENTION THE HAT MAN!

HE TOOK ME FOR SEVREAL YEARS!

History-

I am a state Finalist and national qualifier in PF debate and have encounter all forms of cases and structures.

What I'm looking for in a round-

• My biggest thing is to be respectful to the other team. Debate is for everyone, no need to make in needlessly hostile
• I will weigh any argument, no matter its contents, as long as it is supported with good evidence and links
• Using analytics is good, but if you rely purely on it and don't use much evidence, I'll give your arguments with less weight
• You can speak at any pace that suits you, but do not be too fast to the point where you are hard to understand. If I can't understand you ill motion for you to slow down.
• If you bring up a rule your opponent broke make sure you have proof that it is a rule unless it's something commonly known (No counterplans, no Going overtime by a large margin. ETC.)

Extra notes-

• You may use your phone to time yourself
• You will have to keep your own prep time, ill mark it down as well but I may miss something
• Like the last point, ill also time speeches, if you go overtime by more than 10 seconds, I will cut you off.
• I'll try and give in depth critiques in my ballots, but if you have further questions, Email me on GriffinWoodson111306@gmail.com with any questions