I have a cold black heart, so don't try me.

Background:

- I am the Chuck Norris of debate, I am never wrong.

Weighing

- I weigh heavily on logical arguments

- Statistics mean nothing if not backed up by a logical, thought out argument.

- I am not opposed to fast speaking, but you must do it well or you will pay heavily.

- Personal attacks on your opponents do not bode well with me.

- Cross X is just as important as speeches to me. I feel like Cross truly determines whether or not you know what you are talking about.

- Be professional in round.

- I am not opposed to puns in round, if they are actually punny.

Be nice to each other and don't spread please. 

Choose clarity and emphasis of points over speed and volume of words.  If you are speaking so fast it is difficult to understand you OR if you are not separating your points when transitioning from one point/sub-point or between contentions, this will impact your speaker points.

Be respectful but control your time.  IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED A QUESTION, do not interrupt the person asking it.  If you interrupt, you will loose speaker points.  IF YOU ARE THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTION, this is your time.  You can interrupt once your question has been answered OR if the person you are asking goes off topic... you are encouraged to do this (as long as you do it in a respectful manner).  If you don't do this and you allow the other person to take over your question, you will loose speaker points.

Once your time is up, finish your statement and be done.  If you continue beyond that, I'll let you know your time is up and you will loose speaker points.

Happy debating!!!

Hi my name is Carter I was in debate for 3 years doing Ld/Pf and occasionally BQ, I was also a member of my teams presidency for 2 years and taught several events so I know a decent amount about most events. My pronouns are he/him if you use pronouns other than what’s listed on tab just let me and your opponents know them before the round begins. First I’ll cover general paradigms before going into event specific ones, In general I like people to time themselves so they can keep track of their own time and I’m totally fine with timing your opponents but try not to use an alarm if it’s not for yourself because it will interrupt the round, when talking I prefer if you look at the judge rather than your opponents and also address your opponents as my opponent rather than as their names or anything like that. I also look for basic speech skills like being understandable, having a good tone/emphasis, and not talking too fast. I weigh speeches in a round even so if something is said in any speech even cross I will consider it just as much as the other speeches. This last part is very important if you accuse your opponents of cheating in a round and you don’t have evidence of it as well as a reference to the rule in the tournament rules or NSDA rules don’t even bother with it, I find baselessly accusing your opponent of breaking the rules to be a cheap way of trying to win the round and unless and actual verifiable rule break is happening I don’t want to hear it mentioned at all.

Ld: I mainly taught Ld on my team so this is probably the event I’m most familiar with. So for Ld the main thing is that I care for and will Vote on logic and morals rather than just stats and cards because that’s what Ld is all about philosophy can also be a strong point but it has to be presented very well in order to be a major voting reason. For all speeches try not to speak too fast I can keep up pretty well with fast talking but if you go too fast both me and your opponent will miss many of your points. If you are neg try to work in at least 2 minutes or more of attacking im your opponents case in your first speech rather than just reading your case for the entire 7 minutes I’m not going to be too picky about this but I find it really helps your side overall in the round. The last thing I’ll say here is that I like roadmapping preferably an off time roadmap so long as you don’t make it too long.

Pf: I have taught Pf and competed in it many times so I know this event well. While pf is more about facts and cards I also really like to see logic and morals enter the round especially if they compliment the facts you present, so for example if there is two stats presented and one is about money and the other is about human life I am much more likely to favor the one about human life because it not only ties into facts and cards but also logic and morals. Try not to just spit out cards in your card in a never ending flow of them because I’ve found that does happen a lot in pf instead have a few cards here and there and take some to explain the cards and how they tie into your case and your framework. For cross and especially grand cross I like to see a lot of clash and speaking from both speakers on a team I don’t want to see one partner just talking the whole time while the other just sits there so please have everyone include themselves in cross when they can.

Alright so overall just have fun and be respectful of everyone in the round and at the tournament aggression can be good but being mean or disrespectful is not and it will go against you in terms of speaker points and overall decision if you are either of those things. So that’s it if you have any questions about the round or my comments or paradigm feel free to email me at carterlobato@gmail.com

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

Hello, I'm Jack (or Gavin, either works). I debated for 3 years and made state two of those years (COVID was a devil) for bonneville high school's policy team. I debated in public forum for half a year before switching to CX for the remainder of my time. I'm experienced with most arguments, but I have ADHD so speaking too quickly or unclearly will result in the argument being ignored unless brought up again.

Please bring forward any concerns prior to the round. Some ability issues are not outwardly apparent, and I strive to create a safe space in which to debate. This includes speed issues, skill issues (Novices, I've been there), etc. Here is my judging style: (Tech over truth, Dropped Egg, Tabula Rasa, No Hate, Less Spread, Cx flowed but not weighed)

Truth over tech: I understand a prioris, but I prefer to vote on substance rather than tech. Tech arguments will be weighed, especially in close debates, but if your opponents lay out a solid plan with some small technical flaws and you only run tech, you will lose. Blatant abuse will not be tolerated. CX is flowed but weighed less than speeches.

Rfd: Keep your flows organized. Any argument not addressed in the next speech will be considered conceded, except for the neg block. I run tabula rasa except "sky is green" arguments. I will drop any specialized knowledge in judging and accept what you tell me. Signposting is highly appreciated, but I'll do my best to keep up. 10 second grace period for over time, Speeches under time are fine as long as they get to every argument. Make your arguments understandable in cross. If you run philosophically heavy stuff, take the time to explain what you're saying or I will vote on the argument I understand. 

Speaks: 30 is an amazing speech. Insightful analysis, persuasive rhetoric, and good use of time will all result in a 30. 25 is a terrible speech. Ad Hominem, disorganization, and fallacy will result in a 25. I strive for a normal distribution of points. Any violations of rules or any blatant issues will result in speaks in critiques being listed with problems For example:

(Ballot: 25pts Speech:28 -1 spread faster than opponent understandability -1 persistent ad hominem, -1 Abusive language)

(Ballot: 18pts Speech 28 pts -10 education violation (If your opponents can't fill time, running T about how you are owed full speech times isn't gonna win sympathy with me. Take that up with tab, don't use that as a voter.))

No -ism or -phobia: Be a good person. Ad hominem attacks are also not allowed. Use of blatant slurs that you cannot claim (The ones usually shortened to one letter) will also result in an instant loss. Please bring up any use of slurs to me after round. 

Limit Spread: I understand the desire to speak quickly, I do too when I'm nervous. I will do my best to understand what you're saying, but this is ultimately meant to be persuasive event. If I cannot understand you, I will stop actively flowing and any args read past that point will not be weighed. Spread can also be an ability issue. If you find that your opponent is speaking too quickly but I am flowing, please speak up as soon as the speech is over.

Education Above All: The ultimate point of teenagers talking at an adult in some random high school is to learn.  I weigh legitimate education issues heavily. If you are debating and clearly winning, calm down. Vets should be trying to help novices with terminology as opposed to adding to a win.  This isn't at the expense of your round. If it's clearly unbalanced, win the round and then teach. I can't and won't give you the loss for the round, but rest assured your speaker points will prevent you from getting into finals if you don't try to teach. 

My name is Avery Truman (pronouns she/her), and I did Public Forum for two years as a team captain. I placed 1st for National Qualifications and placed at State.

As for some general things I am looking for in a round, make sure to always be respectful. Keep in mind that every point you make should be backed up by evidence. If something is said that doesn't have a card with a source to support it, and your opponent points that out to me, I won't acknowledge what was said. Don't look at your opponents during round and try to make eye contact with me during your speeches. Stand during your speeches, but you don't have to for cross. I do flow cross, so what you say will be taken into consideration in questioning periods! If you run out of time to finish your first speech, do not continue reading in your next speech, just move on with what you have said. For PF, do not bring anything up anything in your final focus that is new information, in this segment you should just tell me why you have won the round and what you have done to prove that. 

The summary speech and final focus are very integral to a round, and the formatting is everything. Please bring your framework back to your final speeches and use voters to organize your speech, stating how you have won on each point. I appreciate roadmaps. 

I am currently studying environmental sciences at Utah State University, and I believe that environmental impacts are very relevant to most rounds. This doesn't mean you should run your whole case through environmentalism, but I do ask that that it's not made an afterthought within a round if it is brought up. It should be debated with the same importance as other points.