49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament
2023 — Cambridge, MA/US
PF (In-Person Divisions) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Last Revised in Nov 2022. No one reads paradigms in GA anymore so if it's a GA tournament, you must begin your FIRST speech with: "The fog is coming."
LD 21-22 Speaks Average: 28.78
**I need evidence marked by last name and year for all cards—even if from the same article (i.e., Smith 18 every time and NOT Smith 1, Smith 2 – thanks in advance)
About: Did 4 years of LD @ Sequoyah HS in GA (this means I went from nothing to learning circuit debate independently), did qual to nats and could break at local and national levels, but wasn't spectacular, I don't do college CX but I semi-actively judge debate (usually LD or CX, sometimes PF). SHS '21, UGA '24.
- I do try to think about judging (at least in terms of improvement) as often as possible
- Pronouns: any/all, saying my name during speeches feels weird (so maybe avoid that)
Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):
- They'll be higher if you start slower and let me get accustomed to your voice, but other than that, you can go as fast as you want - you still have to speak clearly if you spread (if it wasn't on my flow, it wasn't in the round)
- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: email@example.com (obligatory for online debates) - fileshare/speechdrop are fine too if online
- Never liked the system of speaks (kinda arbitrary/ableist tbh) but it's what we got, I try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool
- You can bribe me by bringing me either a frozen coffee (original or mocha) from Dunkin' or a vanilla sweet cream coldbrew from Starbucks (can also bring me an energy drink for lesser speaks), but don't bring me anything not listed (I have allergies)
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
K: 1 (includes High Theory)
Trad: Your call
- Not lay, can safely pref me if you want a reasonably experienced circuit judge comfortable w/ evaluating a range of args
- Weighing and tech matter the most to me, don't pref me if you think speaking matters for the RFD part of debate
- I don't judge this as often, assume I'm relatively standard for circuit stuff, but also assume I have little knowledge of the topic metagame
- I have some understanding of stuff like missiles and LAWs from LD and cyberschooling given my educational background, but that's about it for substantive knowledge
General Prefs (applies to all events):
- For GA debates (aka locals): the best way I can summarize how you should debate in front of me is to pretend I have amnesia, and that you need to explain from ground zero—this makes it so that I don’t have to intervene in my RFD—you can ignore most of the circuit stuff (i.e., Ks, Theory) in my paradigm, but I would highly recommend finding the “Traditional” portion of my LD paradigm to know what to avoid doing with me in the back
- Imma be honest right here I've kinda shifted to dislike judging theory and tricks more and appreciate policy and especially K styles (phil debates are welcome too, if you know what you're doing) a lot more. I've also grown to appreciate performances and narratives a lot more as of late, do with that information what you will.
- Weighing is wonderful and an easy place to earn speaks and the ballot
- Won’t vote on: arguments that force me out of a judge role, ad homs and similar args (past positions, prefs, out-of-round stuff, etc.), or anything that compromises debate as educational (flat earth, anti-vax etc.) – no limits other than those (and obv exclusionary args)
- I’m not a fan of frivolous arguments in any capacity
- Keep debate safe—use preferred pronouns, don’t be a gremlin, don’t interrogate the opponent after the round (sigh), and if you feel unsafe, lmk in whatever way you feel comfortable; also, being traditional isn't an excuse to be discriminatory
- As a follow-up to the above - if you try and go for 'misgendering good' or if you keep doing it after being corrected, you are likely to lose with low speaks - I would rather not have to enforce this if I don't have to
- I enjoy philosophy a lot but you should explain and either weigh or do analysis for me between FWs bc otherwise it becomes impossible to resolve tbh
- I'll vote on both analytical ethical philosophy and continental, but prefer the former, and the latter requires more explanation
- You don't need to read tricks as philosophy (will vote on paradoxes, will not vote on shenanigans)
- Moral skepticism and nihilism can be fun args (like Mackie and Nietzsche), but I dislike epistemic skepticism
- Your speaks are capped at 28 if you quote source Kant or something along those lines (Hoppe also comes to mind)
- I don't really care for religious FWs
- Dislike impact-justified frameworks—read util with impact calc instead if you want certain impacts to matter more
- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC, TJFs are also terrible arguments
- Lit, just do lots of weighing and impact calc
- Your FW needs to actually be explained, both Util/SV and weigh Aff v. K/whatever (phil NC?) tend to be really vague and I don’t feel like filling in for you—you also must read util or SV/oppression in the 1AC or the NC can be anything (hint hint)
- Perm > theory for cheaty CPs, I tend to err Aff on these questions anyway, and if you go theory, you have to weigh against 1NC procedurals
- Some of the best rounds when done right—more than any other style, you need weighing, impact calc, and analysis
- Extinction arguments are overrated and unnecessary on some resolutions (an example would be standardized tests)
- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants
- Great that you found a dictionary definition or grammar rule—how does it apply to the resolution
- Clash and give LBL—engage with the policy Aff, FW Neg must engage with case or it becomes impossible to resolve
- Read whatever but I depend more on your explanation than my outside knowledge, especially with postmodernism (which I do enjoy)
- These rounds can make me either really happy or really depressed depending on how well you know your lit and actually put in effort into the debate
- The K must link to the Aff (be specific pls), the alt needs to be explained (especially the Cap K alt, always super lazy)—Aff perms are lazy too and I want to know what the perm actually looks like, and no the perm double-bind is not an argument
- Framework is becoming less strategic as a Neg option—if this is your thing, provide a clear vision of affirmation (not just ‘read a policy’) and give a legit TVA, K v. K is honestly getting more preferable even if it’s often messy (pls weigh)
- Floating PIKs are not a thing, blatant severance perms are also annoying
Traditional LD (Trad):
- I do not care about speaking “well”
- Debate impacts instead of “framework” if the two frameworks don’t clash with each other
- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good (stop reading “democracy” as a value just because it’s mentioned in the rez)
- Weighing and technique still matter in trad rounds—my RFD will be worse without these and I cannot guarantee you will like the decision if you don’t resolve the round for me
- You need to provide solvency, “social contract” and “just war theory” are not actual FWs (just ideas extrapolated from FWs), and bad framework debates are sad debates
- It doesn't matter that your opponent doesn't have a statistic for every single card, empirics are good enough to vote on and I even think statistics are illusory in a lot of instances (basically: if it's not a percentage, I don't care, please stop substituting this as a legitimate argument)
- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments
- I need to be able to pinpoint abuse and a clear norm set by shells (how do I rectify what the opponent did)—this means policy/procedurals are more persuasive than arbitrary rules
- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions
- Theory evidence written by coaches is bad for debate (this does apply to Nebel T)
- Yeah, please don't read friv theory
- I don’t like most theory-type spikes that try to exclude arguments (like ‘all interps are counter-interps’)
- Reasonability is always an option (hint hint)
- RVIs: I could vote on one, I guess…it’s only happened like once though
- OS is good but anything beyond that and you're just trying to read theory for the sake of reading theory, and that's lazy
- Read cards on the impact of OS b/c I'm not going to do this work for you, first 3 last 3 seems ok on-face (similarly, you must defend against disclosure theory since I’m really ambivalent on this question as of late)
- If you read disclosure on trad kids without wikis, I will disregard it
- If you don't ask the opponent to disclose something, they get instant terminal defense (especially if they have contact info on their wiki)
- ‘New Affs Bad’ is stupid
- It's difficult to persuade me of arguments that lack warranting or are one-liners, all in all I'm not a terrific judge for these kinds of debates
- The resolution is normative, not epistemological, and you would need to read an entire AC/NC to flip this ideology since most resolutions are framed as action-based (TT doesn't flip this ideology on its own, stop pretending it does)
Misc/Defaults for LD
- Theory Defaults: Fairness + Ed = Voters, DTD, No RVIs, Reasonability (the latter 3 are easy to flip, the first two are not)
- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence
- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, extremely unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one
- Flow, non-lay, approach the round assuming I’ll evaluate it based on tech but truth is necessary for weighing
- I do have an LD/CX background but I would honestly prefer a slower PF round (like a normal PF round)—most PF teams are bad at progressive argumentation anyway
- I tend to ask to see evidence at the end of the round (and I usually want to see almost all your cards) and I want to have this go as fast as possible, thanks in advance
- I don’t care for speaking nuances lol
- Collapsing and weighing are wonderful and easy places for earning speaks, I don’t just want magnitude-based weighing—timeframe, scope, and probability make it easier to vote
- Preclusion claims and "reversibility" are not real forms of weighing and do not make my ballot easier
- Specifics are always better than generics—if I can clearly see how an impact happens, I’m more likely to vote on it
- To follow up to the above, I won't vote on anything that I don't understand - if I don't understand how an impact happens, you do not get access to that impact
- Artificially inflating warrants is annoying as hell and if you can mitigate internal links by proving that their ev is garbo you will probably get very good speaks
- Defense is probably sticky, extending through ink is probably inevitable to some degree but being blatant is annoying as hell, defending a course of action doesn’t equate to a loss but most resolutions are yes/no questions which means PF isn’t the best place for plans/CPs/kritiks (if you can leverage K lit to answer the question of the rez, feel free to do it btw)
- I have not and do not vote on presumption in PF
Framework (and Ks):
- Don’t go beyond CBA/Util/Structural Violence unless you’ve got a good warrant—most other FWs belong in LD—if you’re gonna flip the round from CBA/Util to SV you should warrant it at some point but it’s not too difficult to persuade me of that (most PF frameworks are terrible though)
- PF teams seem to have a mistaken assumption that winning framework (either normative or in terms of weighing) wins them the round—it’s just impact calc
- I adore Ks but I can’t always promise it’s the best idea in PF—I do, however, very much agree that PF often treats women and other minority debaters badly
Theory and Topicality:
- Please just don’t read theory in PF—if genuine abuse occurred, I’ll intervene on my own
- Just say “no offense cuz no relation to topic” and topicality is resolved in 2 seconds
- Disclosure theory doesn’t belong in PF—the round is short and depends more so on what you do inside of it anyway, what do you need disclosure for?
- Paraphrasing is in fact bad for debate and I heavily prefer quotations to paraphrasing (no one has ever convinced me otherwise)
- I have no tolerance for evidence fabrication, and if I call for a card and you can’t find it, you will lose automatically w/ low speaks
- I typically judge LD but have a handful of CX rounds under my belt and primarily think about LD in a circuit context - a lot of that does carry over
- Most of the Policy/K sections of my LD paradigm summarize my thoughts here, do what you normally do, I enjoy Policy as a substance-focused version of LD (without the philosophical and nonsensical elements of LD rounds)
- Sounds repetitive, but weighing is more important in policy approaches to debate than any other style, and both sides probably have some extinction or major global catastrophe on their flow - you've gotta tell me how I'm supposed to differentiate between two competing nuke wars/Putin going nuts (also a nuke war)/extinction of some sort scenarios, etc.
- Still perm > theory, but also much more indifferent towards condo debates (not that I care for condo theory in LD either...)
- I dislike reading theory for the sake of theory in CX since I view it as the more substantive event, but if there's genuine abuse, I'm familiar with it, will probably not vote on an RVI in this event though
- I default to Policymaker/Util as the ROB but this is super malleable - most ROBs in policy tend to make sense just in terms of framework for how I should understand impact filter/models of debate
- The only limit on offs in the 1NC is the limitation of your ability to make a coherent argument
- Actually pretty impartial on the question of K v. T-FW and Policy v. K, despite the fact that I was usually on the K side of these rounds - always up for debate
- Case debate is good debate and can make/break the round -if the Aff does not extend Case or any of its impacts, I will vote Neg
- Presumption in CX negates until the Neg reads an advocacy, then it affirms - I've voted on this once ever and I would prefer not to
Sequoyah and Perry High Schools, Dean Rusk Middle School
I am a parent of a Public Forum debater. I also have extensive, albeit decades old, experience as a NatCir competitor and judge in Policy High School debate and NDT/CEDA college debate.
I do my best to rely only on the arguments made by the debaters...so...
- Win the flow. Debate is strategy. Find the path to the ballot and for me, it is decided on the flow. Note for novice: I don't flow CX--It's your time to gain clarity or pressure test your strategy...if especially clever or especially rude it may influence speaker pts, but not my ballot.
- Weigh the arguments and argue how to weigh them. ;) Tech > Truth. I’m okay with you paraphrasing but expect evidence to be produced to support all claims. Include me on the evidence chain, but I’m not going to read your cards on my own and decide whose evidence is better - unless the teams boils the clash down to whether the ev means this or that and you are asking for me to take a look see.
- Connect the dots. Don't assume I'll know the ins and outs of your arguments the way you do. If I'm not picking up what you are laying down, you'll know by the look on my face, so please make it make sense.
I have no preference on speed, if you spread you would be wise to use signposts and tags to help this boomer keep the flow straight.
I have no preference on types of arguments or strategy. Have fun and be creative. If you can make it make sense, I’ll vote on it. I have not judged Ks in PF or Policy in several decades...so in all fairness, I would have a very difficult time evaluating a K debate.
Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!
I debated PF in high school.
I am okay with speed.
I will flow every speech, but not crossfire.
I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts.
Please give an off time roadmap before your speech and sign post during your speech.
I will mainly vote based off of your final focus.
- Please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.
Tech > Truth Judge.
I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks - L26
I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.
I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread.
Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules.
Sign post, sign post, sign post!
My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.
I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!
If you ask what the powerhouse of the cell is during cross, then you get +1 speaker points :)
26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.
27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).
28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything.
29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.
Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
Always add me to your email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
If you feel sick or have a cough (even if you haven't tested positive for covid) please wear a mask.
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus.
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky- with an additional minute in summary, defense that is unextended is dropped.
Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. Do not yell. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger warnings appreciated when relevant
- I really don't love theory as a norm in PF. I never want to see disclosure theory. If there is a HUGE violation and theory is the only way to deal with it, I'll tolerate it but speaks will likely be lower. Otherwise, I'd rather have you discuss it in a more accessible and traditional PF way.
Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program. I've been judging PF since 2018, Parli since 2019, and LD since 2021.
School Affiliation: Summit HS, Summit, NJ
Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (in hs in the 1980s)
FOR PUBLIC FORUM:
If you read nothing else, read this: Be very clear in Summary/Final Focus on why you are winning the round. State clearly what impacts you have access to and what those impacts are. I favor a clear path to well-defined impacts in summary and final focus. When weighing, don't stop at "we outweigh on scope/magnitude/probability, etc.", but please let me know (very quickly) to what exactly you are referring to (i.e. how you are outweighing compared to your opponent) so I can follow your line of thought. It helps if you spell out to me very clearly why you are winning over your opponents--so I can follow all your line of reasoning. I try to judge without intervention, so give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. Go ahead, in final focus tell me the RFD you want me to write!
The Basics: I strive to be a flow-oriented judge. I prefer strong, smart arguments. I prefer factual evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. I strive not to intervene, so I expect teams to clearly show why arguments should be voted on. I value argument over style.
In rebuttal, I don't require the team second speaking to cover the opponents' case as well as answers to their opponents' rebuttal. I don't vote on arguments raised in cross-fire, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on arguments first raised in summary or final focus.
I like a little aggression, but I don't like rudeness. Friendly-aggression hits my sweet spot. In other words, show kindness to the other team before & after the round and common courtesy throughout. But when it comes to the round, I'm good with a strong aggressive posture.
Speed and Organization: When it comes to fast speaking, if you do it, I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. If you are speaking fast and your thoughts are a bit muddled or unorganized, you will be doing yourself a disservice as I won't be able to follow you adequately on the flow. Sign-posting and line-by-line is always appreciated for the same reason, it ensures that I'm following you adequately. If you are spreading at 260 words a minute or above, please provide me with a document so that I can follow along, there is no way that I can flow otherwise.
Just to reiterate: The biggest danger for you as a debater when you are speaking very fast is that I'm not able to keep up with you on the flow. If it doesn't make my flow, I might not judge on it and that is very sad because you might have said what you needed to win the round, but I might have missed it because I couldn't keep up.
Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I appreciate it when team members are also keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.
Cards: If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. This includes if a team suddenly can't access a website for an article (this happens on occasion).
I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the two teams. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during questioning or grand crossfire. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the two teams made during rebuttal or summary & final focus and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tournament officials immediately.
Disclosing: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.
Plans/Kritik/Theory: It should go without saying that in PF rounds I will NOT vote on formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation (aka plans or counterplans).
It's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik. I will judge a round on theory/kritik, as I believe it is a practice that can establish equity and allows debaters to advocate for themselves for fairness in PF. That being said, I don't like frivolous theory, so please try to be very clear on why the theory/kritik is important in your particular round. In addition, I need to see that you completely understand your argument, it needs to be clearly presented in an accessible way. I do need well explained, warranted voters if you are planning on running theory in a round I'm judging. I have found some educational voters around PF to not be well warranted, so please be especially careful if that's your voter. Be specific about what the educational value of PF is and clearly define impact. Also, please warrant your implication, I need to know why said action is warranted.
Please use this quote as your guide: "If the 'citizen judge' would be confused by a theory argument, it should not be read, because to do so would shift away from the purpose of PF debate." (Source: https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/)
FOR LINCOLN DOUGLAS:
I'm new to LD beginning 2021. I'm still learning. Treat me like a lay judge. Thanks for your patience.
My judging experience is mostly in the NYC-metro/Northeast USA area. I will entertain most any well-reasoned argument. I prefer very clear warrants and impacts. Telling me how impacts connect with a framework is also a huge preference. Signposting is very important to me as I flow and I don't like to get lost.
I will not consider new arguments presented in the final two speeches. Still, please call out any argument you believe is new.
If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace. I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.
Who is the House?
I want to know who is this house and what are their preferences? Doesn't have to be fancy.
Talk quick, talk slow, I don't care. Just speak well and signpost. Also, it's nice if you introduce yourself at the beginning of the round without me asking.
Default Speaker Point Breakdown (unless one is supplied by the tournament):
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Very strong analysis but with some errors.
27: Average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. May have made a drop or flaw in argumentation.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a large error.
25: Having difficulties functioning in the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Very large error(s). Or an incident of offensive or rude behavior.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning in or completing the round. Or a speaker displaying consistent offensive or rude behavior.
Harvard 2022- I'm being put in to judge last minute so consider me super, super lay. I haven't judged in ages and I'm not super familiar with the topic.
Background: I'm a coach at Ivy Bridge Academy. I coach Novice and beginners. My students are typically on the younger side, so I'm generally familiar with the main arguments on a topic, but might not be super familiar with something more obscure. That doesn't mean you should shy away from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them.
Case: I personally enjoy theory and kritiks (as long as they are somewhat relevant and not totally abusive towards your opponent) so feel free to try out these kind of arguments when you have me as a judge. But with that, don't run them just for the sake of running them. If you feel like you have a good case even if it's more standard, that's probably your best bet. The popular arguments are usually popular for a reason.
Crossfire: It's customary for the team that speaks first to ask the first question, so go with that. I enjoy heated crossfires, so I don't mind a bit of aggression, but read the room if you're going to do this. If your opponent is matching your level, you're fine. If they seem timid and on the verge of tears, back down a bit.
Response speech: The first speech obviously just needs to respond to your opponent's arguments and elaborate a bit more on your own. For the second speech, I don't require you to frontline, but I think it will serve you better if you do. That way you have an extra layer of defense against your team. It's strategically wise.
Summary: My expectation is that the first speaker will give me an overview of their case, respond to their opponent's responses, extend their partner's responses, and if time allows weigh. Second speaker should do mostly the same, but like I said with the response, you're better off if you frontline.
Final Focus: This is your last chance to explain exactly why you've won this debate. I want to hear not only why you've won, but why your opponent has lost. Weigh your case against theirs. Is there something you want me to judge based off of? Tell me. If you tell me exactly what my RFD is, you up your chances of winning spectacularly.
Flowing: I'll flow the debate, but generally not crossfire unless something really sticks out at me.
Time Keeping: If it seems like I need to keep time, I will, but if it seems like I don't, I won't. You should always make it a practice to keep your own time. :)
Speed: I'm generally okay with speed, buy policy-style spreading might be a bit much.
Paraphrasing: I think it's fine, as long as you have the cards cut and available upon request. I hardly ever call for cards, but if something sounds sketchy I will. If your partner calls for a card and you don't have it, I won't consider your 'evidence.' A link to a website isn't a cut card.
Voting: I generally take a more holistic view of the debate, and consider everything when making my decision. I wouldn't say I'm a diehard tech> truth judge, but if I'm having to do too much reasoning on my own, then you haven't done your job and that's not a good thing. I do want to see you play offense and defense. I want to hear what's good about your case and what's bad about your opponent's case. If you want me to vote based on a certain criteria, tell me. Like I said in the final focus section, if you tell me exactly why you've won and your partner lost, you up your chances of winning.
Speaker Points: I think I'm pretty fair in this. 26 is the lowest I'll go, and that's generally only if you seem woefully unprepared or if you are overtly rude to your opponents or me more than once. I don't think I've ever given a 30 out at a big tournament, but I'm not against it. Generally you'll see a 26.8- 29.3 range.
Feedback: I usually give more oral feedback than written feedback, because Tabroom wants ballots ASAP. If you want feedback on something specific, ask me before the debate so I know to look out for it and gather my thoughts. I'll assume you want me to disclose the winner, unless you tell me not to.
I think that should cover most questions, but if you need further clarification, feel free to ask!
I am a judge with more than ten years of experience in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I began my coaching career in 2008 and happily have returned to the Speech and Debate world after a recent hiatus.
I am a flow judge that values precision of thought, argument structure, and word choice. I welcome authoritative sourcing in support of arguments but never an appeal to authority. I understand the tactical reason for speed but prefer to be convinced by the strength of the argument and the rhetorical elegance of the presentation.
As a teacher of history that thrives on disputation, I require a clash of ideas. I am philosophically fond the counterpunch and find a “turn” often to be the highlight of a debate. Find the flaw in your opponent’s argument and exploit it to your advantage.
During cross, particularly grand crossfire, strive for a balance between contention and civility.
Disclosure, if permitted by tournament rules, is not a time for discussion or appeal.
Two Princeton Update:
1. If you are sick or coughing or sneezing do not get me sick please. Don't come up and cough on me, and also please wear a mask when you aren't speaking if you are feeling under the weather.
2. If you are flight two, please be ready to start at the start time listed on tab room (don't come into the room and then say you need to pre-flow)
Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.
TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly a fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).
Background: Was a mediocre debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020.
Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.
After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).
- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.
- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move
- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.
- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.
- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.
- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.
- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.
- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.
Summary & Final Focus
- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.
- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.
- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.
- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.
- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (ie, don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be avoided). Disclosure, paraphrasing, and misgendering theory are all fair game.
- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything, just be aware of my personal beliefs. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them.
- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.
- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you wouldn't extend case there either)-- I don't care about extension outside of FF and Summary
- I've voted on Kritikal args several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.
- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim please.
- Prog weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing, link weighing, and structural violence framing.
- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing .
- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that.
- READ CONTENT WARNINGS PLEEEEEAAAASE. Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt out no matter how you do it.
-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.
- How to boost speaks: If we are on Zoom and you make a witty remark about one of the posters in the background, speaks boosted. Otherwise if you incorporate something about the Badgers into your speech (i.e., South Korea's missile defense system is impenetrable as the Badgers O-line) I will def boost your speaks for reading this far.
UPDATE: you are now allowed to roast Badger football since they are so bad, but if you are talking about volleyball or basketball the comment must praise the team.
How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.
- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it isn't strategic.
- Politics Disads/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't objectively offensive
- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.
- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.
- Tricks: Nope.
- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.
Debate Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit.
General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist. I believe PF debate should be as lay as possible, since that's the point of its creation. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. If it's too fast, I won't be able to flow it. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any fiats, disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy.
Also, please extended your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a little road map (if your speech structure is going to be unusual), and weigh. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us.
General Paradigm (LD): I have very little experience (read: none) judging LD. I'll try not to approach it from a PF perspective, but I'm afraid that may end up happening. Speak slower, extend, weigh, all of that good stuff.
Theory:I don't like theory and won't flow it. Not much more to be said there.
Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough, or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to email@example.com.
Speaks: Average speaks for me starts at a 28, and the lowest I'll go is a 26. Otherwise, please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc. On a lighter note, I'll give you an extra .5 speaker points if you manage to slip in a Doctor Who reference. (This will not, unfortunately, buy you a 30.5).
Meme Cases:I like meme cases, but check with your opponents and your/their coaches to ensure everyone's on board and on the same page.
Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.
Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School
2a/1n UH debate 2016-19
email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
Novices: I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!
Unrelated: Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel
On T be persuasive, this will serve you well. Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put fourth.
I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate, however I have judged plenty of policy rounds on other topics. As a debater I have debated the kritik explicitly. I say this not to make anyone think I am biased, but because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. That being said I enjoy policy rounds and would love to judge some.
Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.
I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I do not harbor ideological biases. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.
Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!
I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:
The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not.
Rebuttals: The first rebuttal should thoroughly refute the opposing case. The 2nd rebuttal should refute the opponents case and address attacks on their own case. A good rebuttal has a good balance of analytics AND evidence. Logical and well thought out analytics are crucial to win a PF debate.
Summary: This is the most important speech in the debate. After the rebuttals lots of arguments have been made with lots of potential ways to win the debate. The job of the summary is to start writing my ballot. Start explaining your key arguments and why they are important and why they mean you win. Likewise, the summary must refute a few key arguments that the opposing team has made and explain why their arguments are not good enough to win the debate.
Final focus: The role of the final focus is to finish writing my ballot. It is difficult to know what is the right argument to go for. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.
Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.
Frameworks: I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.
Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.
Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.
Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.
MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I do not harbor ideological biases. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.
I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.
Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.
Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.
1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.
Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.
Leave debate jargon for other events.
Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.
This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.
I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.
I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.
1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.
Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.
Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.
As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.
I am excited to be your judge today!
I'm a parent judge and relatively new to judging. Below are a few things I'll be looking for in your speech
- Clear articulation
- Analysis and Support for your arguments
- Team Balance and
All the best and looking forward to your debate!
Background: competed for 3 years in PF in high school and 1 year in Policy and Parli respectively.
Email chain: email@example.com
I'm pretty open to, and will vote on, pretty much any argument (K, pics, fw, condo etc. and theory saying all the above are bad are all fair game) - as long as they're explained well, which means comprehensible to a lay audience: so take the time to explain the warrant (+ impact if applicable) and extend it through every speech, don't assume a) that I know what you're talking about or b) that I'll remember what you said in earlier speeches. Give me a convincing argument for why you won the round in your final speech - in the sense that I should be able to vote for you without having listened to any of the debate beforehand (although ofc I'll be flowing the whole thing). I try really hard not to intervene.
I'm ok with speed but please slow down for tags and send me a speech doc!
Please be nice to each other, be charitable and play fair with each other (for example, please no prep time/card calling shenanigans, I trust you guys to be chill with that) and overall relax during the debate, we're all here to have fun! :) (also please free to be casual/comfortable re. attire, especially online)
If you have any questions (or just want to chat), feel free to shoot me an email or ask me before round! This isn't out of courtesy, I genuinely love talking about anything and everything!
Sequoyah-HS 21' Georgia State Uni 25'. College debater in Open CX.
Ivy Bridge Academy coach
Joshuasp.firstname.lastname@example.org (put me on the email chain)
1 - K
1 - LARP
2 - Theory / Topicality
2 - Stock Framework (ie. Kant, Rawls)
2 - Light Tricks (less than 2 minutes)
3 - High Framework (ie. Hegel, Deleuze)
4 - Heavy Tricks (Your whole case is just tricks and a priori's hidden everywhere)
I primarily do K debate and I am a massive fan of psychoanalysis, moten and beller. I also have a lot of experience in queer lit like newer stanley stuff and munoz.
Plz be funny, I am a firm believer that the best debater can have perfect technical analysis whil also making me laugh during the round.
-- READ FURTHER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CRY --
I am good with any arg that isn't blatantly racist, sexist or, homophobic.
I will scribble on my paper flow if thats what you want and I will give my scribbled dinosaur to the K debater who gets me to do it.
4 years LD (HS), on and off college policy ("I hate beuaracracy" - Me)
Team IBA! (yes it's a PF thing, yes I still adore high theory K's, PLZ GIVE ME MORE BAUDRILLARD)
LD topic specific stuff real quick:
I think aff's should have an explicit text of what they defend in the AC unless it is a K - this topic allows very shady 1ar's and unless that's your intent from the AC (which if done well can be very enjoyable) I think it will lead to messy debates which are no fun to be in or judge.
I think the best debates in LD have a plan aff and a K neg - this debates have sufficient tech for critical thinking and also have time explain their thoughts in the given time structure.
What I am good at evaluating
I am great for plan rounds, K rounds and theory rounds. Any K lit is fine, the crazier the more fun, I love cyberfeminsim, psychoanalysis, various cap K's like racial cap, whatever, do what you are good with because that will be the best articulated round.
I can evaluate any philosophically based argument as long as there is effort put into explanation - however I am p knowledgeable abt most philosophy bases from Nietzsche to Baudrillard to Cioran.
I like advantage affs with stock impacts like nuke war, its what I used a lot.
Fav lit bases: Pess, Cyberfem, Racial cap, Psychoanalysis, Heidegger, Cap, IR K's.
My IRL value system is a mix of Psychoanalysis and racial cap K's so make of that what you will.
Ballot story is needed and if you don't have one then why would I vote for you? This is often forgotten in K debates and can just lose a round and is very sad to watch.
Basically I understand p much any K you throw at me, just make sure you win the K. Win ontology or TOP and u win p much, I love K > theory weighing.
Plz have a thesis card in ur 1AC/1NC. Theory of power / ontology is extremely important to me and if you win the links without winning the theory of power, sorry bud, you lost.
I believe that most K's can function under "the ROB is to vote for the better debater", just use the K links to say they are a bad debater
I will evaluate re-articulation in the 1ar/2ar or new extrapolation in the 1ar/2ar. I think that unless the K takes a firm stance on something it is fair ground up until the 2ar which must draw its offense and defensive args from the 1ar.
This is what I used the most my senior year, I like creative plan affs that destroy whatever the initial purpose of the topic was.
Extinction first is kinda OP.
I don't believe a solvency advocate is needed, however have solvency please to how something the plan does solves the advantage.
Whole res tends to be surprisingly stragetic.
Notice: I have come to dislike disclosure theory against lay debaters. 1. U literally don't need it 2. It solves nothing because lay debaters will never put stuff on wiki anyway. I will vote on it but it makes me sad
1ar theory is the most powerful advantage that the aff has.
I default DTD, CI, RVI Good. Fairness is a voter. Education is a voter. I err fairness first. Education weighing can be strategic though against a fairness based CI or shell. If paradigm issues are not extended through I default to these ^
I like disclosure
Absent a specified violation I assume "violation: they do"
I think pragmatics ow semantics but a semantic collapse is always appreciated too. I will always prefer a limits 2n to a definitions 2n though. If you for limits or ground, contextualize what ground the aff kills or how large the limits they create are, absent this contextualization I will usually err aff on pragmatic offense.
Ground and clash are best framed through limits.
I don't believe framework is inherently violent but I understand the reasons as to why people say it is - I can go either way.
I dislike heavy definition oriented T-shells
The grammar DA is chill
Assume I don't know what you are talking about - I love a good syllogism. I enjoy Jaeggi and can enjoy Kant/Korsgaard.
I am constantly learning more abt phil and have judged or used most possible FW's and understand them more than I used to, I am still learning here as everyone should be :)
Using frameworks as tricks/presumption triggers is fine, I prefer if the trigger is implied heavily in the AC but will evaluate regardless
Just do what you do. I will vote on it. Make the ballot an easy one. I do not appreciate tricks and the more tricks you have like the lower speaks you will get. These are not fun debates to judge and if you are fine with getting a W27 or W28 then yes pref me for tricks. (if u larp u r more likely to win and will get higher speaks so j do that :) )
Net benefit is appreciated. CP theory can be persuasive.
I believe the perm is an addition to the affirmative plan ie Aff+CP/K > CP/K > Aff
However if the perm text states it is a test of competitive it becomes a question of mutual exclusivity
I rarely give lower than 28, if you are in VLD at a nat tourney you are probs better than a 28. I average around a low 29 for what speaks I give.
The only speech in policy I have never given is a 1AC. Just a fun fact.
Links/IL's/Turns are not sticky
UQ/Impacts and defense are sticky
If you can make funny jokes during your speeches or in CX then you will likely get boosted speaks. Debate is often aggressive and making light of it is usually the best way to my heart.
You will lose speaks for being aggressive towards an opponent, we are all people here, treat them as such.
Parent judge for Germantown Friends School.
Read slowly, speak confidently, and do not be aggressive. Debate is an activity that we are lucky to participate in, make sure that you understand we should all be appreciative of this. It's okay to be passionate, but keep the environment comfortable for everyone.
Any racist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary arguments will result in L + lowest speaks possible.
Explain your argument clearly to me. I will not vote on something I am not sure I understand.
s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)
I'm a first year out from Marist School. I did PF for four years.
Weigh and warrant arguments.
Tech > Truth
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.
2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns
Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it
I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important
I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.
I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.
Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.
If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.