PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

arushadabalar@gmail.com

Topshelf

- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.

LARP

This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.

Ks:

A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.

T/Theory:

Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.

Phil:

I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.

Tricks:

I have a very high threshold for voting on these.

For CX- I am generally a tab judge, but default to policymaker without voters. Ks are ok but you have to be able to link them to the topic/case specifically. CPs have to have a net benefit and solve for the harms presented. I want Voters and Signposting during all speeches. This is first and foremost a speaking event. You may speak quickly but if you spread to the point I cannot understand you , I will not flow it.

For LD- No CPs or No Ks. Value/Criteria Debate is what LD is supposed to be.

CX:

Theory (Aff and Neg): Since I am a Policymaker judge, the Affirmative must propose change and the Negative must demonstrate why the plan is a disadvantage. I do not typically vote for theory arguments as it seems to negatively change the course of the debate. If you want to run theory then you need to make sure you are still going to argue the plan/topic of the debate. Overall I do not normally vote up teams who run theory. Topicality (Neg): If you run a Topicality argument, you HAVE to prove why your interpretation is better or you will not win in that argument/section. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative. Please do not just run a T as negation! Disadvantages (Neg): These are my favorite arguments as they provide a debate. Clash is one of the most important aspects of any debate, especially in Cross Examination. I prefer when teams can run more then one disad, but if you only have one to run then that is fine as long as it hits every single aspect of the Affirmatives case. Disadvantages need to attack the STOCK issues of the aff. As negation your burden is to argue EVERY SINGLE point in the affirmative. If you cannot do this then I cannot up vote. Frameworks (Aff and Neg): The Affirmative’s case should always be strategically constructed to set up future impact comparison arguments. If affirmative wants to run framework in the 1AC, it needs to be run in a way to persuade the judge or else it is not needed. When a team makes framework arguments, they must be answered. Giving the other team uncontested control how the judge evaluates the round comes close to conceding. I will up vote if the opponents do not argue the others framework. Counterplans (Neg): Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution. The counterplan must have a net benefit to be upheld. I am more compelled to opt to a counterplan that solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. The CP MUST solve the plan text! Kirtiks (Neg): I will not upvote on a K, if you run a K you will not win. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation, and they always veer off the actual topic of the debate. If I am to accept the "worlds" of the K arguments then it leaves the affirmative with no ground and leaves them not able to argue harm and solvency. Kritik teams like to trick rather then actually debate substance. The negative must solve the link, not argue rhetorical theory. Unless the K is written perfectly, I will default affirmative. Evidence (Aff and Neg): Evidence is one of the most important aspects of debate. NSDA's evidence rule states you must give the specific source (aka, DO NOT PARAPHRASE). Reading evidence and multiple sources of evidence is paradigm to the debate. Evidence is what bring about the clash and debate I judge upon. Being a policymaker judge means that I vote for the team with the best arguments, amount of evidence, and quality of evidence. With this being said, you as a debater need to understand your own evidence. If you do not understand what a card says, then I prefer you to not even read it. I also like teams that do evidence comparison. One of the things I look for is that you can argue that your evidence is more sufficient then your opponents. Lastly as mentioned before, do not paraphrase your evidence, you need to read the evidence and where it is from as is. Style/Speaking (Aff and Neg): Please include me in the email chain (cammiebee15@gmail.com), if no email then either paper or flash. As a speaker and debater, you must be clear when speaking about anything in round. I am okay with spreading but if you are clearly not understandable, I will stop you in round. I do not want any open CX in round. In NSDA it is allowed which means you can do so; however both partners must equally speak. In UIL open is not allowed. Profanity and rude/derogatory behavior is not allowed. If you are clearly belittling your opponents I will down vote you, and make sure someone is notified. I will disclose if asked.

LD: 

Each debater MUST uphold their value or they will lose the debate. If both debaters have the same value then each debater needs to prove why their case is more substantial to the value given. If the values are different then you must prove why your value fits the topic better. All of your arguments need to link back to your value or else it loses it substantiality. Criteria (Aff and Neg): Your criteria must measure your value. If it does not, then you will lose ground in round. Please do not use a criteria that you cannot explain the definition or the reason it links back to your value. Speaking (Aff and Neg): Please include me in the email chain (cammiebee15@gmail.com), if no email then either paper or flash. Spreading in LD is frowned upon so please do not spread. Profanity and rude/derogatory behavior is not allowed. If you are clearly belittling your opponents I will down vote you, and make sure someone is notified. I will disclose if asked. Voting Issues: I vote for the debater who can prove why their case, evidence, and VC the best. I am a policymaker judge, so I will vote for whoever demonstrates the best plan/arguments. Delivery: There needs to be clash between debaters in round. Clash is one of the biggest thing I look at and vote on in round. When debating your case, you need to be logical as it is important to uphold your VC. In LD I look at what is being said in round and the substantiality of it over how it is said. With that being said you still need to clearly and confidently explain your case, arguments, and evidence.

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

Please include me in your email chain: shyller.mcguire@granburyisd.org

I have been coaching debate for 16 years. Before that, I debated in HS and college. I am fairly traditional in all aspects and will always prefer an on-topic debate to a kritik.

CX

I will judge a debate round both as a decision-maker of the debate and as an educator of oral argumentation. I will vote for the affirmative if its proposal is inherently more advantageous than the negative option (the present system or the counterplan). The affirmative must meet its obligation to the burden of proof on each of the stock issues to win the debate.

The purpose of debate is to deliver arguments so that anyone listening to the debate may make an informed decision as to which side presents a stronger case. Debaters speaking rapidly, or making random arguments without sign-posting, do not communicate and therefore cannot win.

LD

I am very traditional. The VC debate is the most important debate. Your arguments should all link back to the VC. I do not enjoy progressive debating in LD and will not vote on a K. Regarding delivery, you should primarily have well-developed arguments. Now having said that, if I can’t understand you, I won’t flow. If I’m not flowing, you lose. Please stay organized and signpost your arguments.

CONGRESS

Rate of Delivery

Your rate of delivery should be such that a layperson could understand and follow your arguments. See footage of actual senate floor debate for reference.

Quantity of Args

Quantity of arguments is not as important as the strength of your arguments.

Evidence

I'm not listening just to check off that you used sources. Use your sources to add credibility to the argument.

Parli Pro

You MUST know parliamentary procedure in this event! Show me but don't delay us with frivolous motions.

Clash

Speakers should incorporate some direct clash on the issues previously brought up by others. Avoid repetition of other speakers' points.

Questioning

Ask purposeful, straightforward questions. Challenge the speaker on their knowledge of the topic.

brandon.collier07@gmail.com for flashing / inquires

I go by "Kk", not the name on my Tabroom lol. I keep it there so Tabroom can keep track. If you call me by it I won't be mad or correct you, but I'd appreciate if you referred to me otherwise. Also, you don't have to call me judge, you can just use my name. I'm chill.

Pronouns: They/Them (please respect this lol)

Experience – 4yrs Speech & Debate -- 2 1/2 yrs CX & 1 1/2 yrs Congress/Extemp. 3yrs judging experience including UIL 5A+6A districs.

For LDers - I prefer traditional LD. Not Policy based LD. You can run policy based, but seeing as I was predominantly a Policy debater and predominantly a Policy judge, it will be under far more intense scrutiny than if judged by someone who had not done Policy.

Note - Most of this applies to solely CX, but you will get some value out of reading it as an LD, PF, Congress etc debater. Specifically 'Speaking Style', 'Quality vs. Quantity', 'CX (Questioning)', and 'Flashing'.

CX PARADIGM

Approach: Policymaker – This will explain itself more if you read my full paradigm, but essentially: I like advocating for some sort of policy. Affs with plans, negs with CPs, etc are all good in my book. Don’t expect to win just by running a Kritik.

Specific Issues:

Speaking Style –

You can speak fast if you prefer, but overt spreading (the gasping thing) is something I dislike. As long as you are clear and can make your point without me having to read along the entire speech, I’m fine with speed. Getting loud at points is fine, but I don’t like screaming just for the sake of screaming; use intonation and volume with a purpose.

I flow like someone who has never seen a sheet of paper, a pen, or any electronic device built in the last 30 years, so don't take me writing or not writing as a sign if you're speaking too fast. If I think you are unintelligible (or don't like your point), I'll most likely just stop typing, writing, everything and just sit and stare at you. It is up to you, as the debater, to debate with purpose and inherent value, and not try to overflow us or your opponents with arguments and speed.

I think you need to be able to make your point without being condescending as well – if you are rude, make snarky comments, etc. towards your opponents, your speaker points will be bombed, regardless if they call you out or not.

Please signpost and give roadmaps. Roadmaps can be off the clock before your speech.

Topicality –

As long as aff has some relation to the resolution I’m mostly unbothered by topicality. If it’s something actually specific or the aff is genuinely wildly nontopical, then run it. Running a generic T just to run one is lame; If you have to run generic arguments I’d prefer if you just didn’t run a generic T at all and ran something like a basic DA instead; it provides more substance for the round and gives me something to actually vote on.

For the neg – if you run T and say that you have no ground inside the round but are running multiple offs and/or almost any oncase with decent relevancy and links then that standard/voter will be heavily scrutinized. (If you believe you can make a strong case with it, go for it, but if not I’ll be side-eyeing it on my flow the entire round.)

Lastly, I believe your T shell must include standards and voters. I don’t care if you personally believe they aren’t necessary, if they aren’t included in a championship/varsity CX Topicality shell I will most likely not evaluate it. If they aren’t introduced in the same speech as the T shell but brought in later I will heavily scrutinize that as well.

Disadvantages –

Obviously, DAs are fine and you can basically do whatever with them. Be specific with links, UQ and everything of course. I prefer if you focus on urgent bodies (impacts that can have a realistic and tangible effect sooner rather than later) as opposed to big sticks (I’m looking at you, nuclear war). Of course, you can run a big stick impact, but my preference is on unique impacts. They make the clash more interesting. Make nuke/extinction work well and I will vote for it, though!

Counterplans –

I like CPs that are executed well. As long as you prove that your CP does it better and the aff has no way of perming it then it will be a large voting factor. CPs can be topical or nontopical – I only bring this up as some judges have an issue with it. State net benefits clearly, if any (and I prefer if there are).

Something else to note is that I’m okay with contradictory neg positions as long as you adequately explain them. If you run a CP that triggers the DA just like the aff, maybe don’t run it or have a way to avoid the DA.

Theory –

I like theory when it’s used in conjunction with what you’re already running. Only in extreme cases should you throw out all of your arguments and run with your theory arg.

On framework – Framework of the aff is what is inherently valued in the round unless neg runs a FW that they prove is better. FW should not simply state how to value the round, provide theory and research as to why your FW is important and relevant to your plant/the resolution. I love FW args if they are executed well by both parties.

Kritiks –

are an argument. If you run a generic kritik that can be applied to any affirmative, I probably won’t value it highly - use your links and uq please. If you run a kritik and there is no alternative or your alt is to ‘reject the aff’, I definitely will not value it highly.

Other Issues:

Conditionality –

I don’t care. If you make a good case for condo bad then I’ll listen to it, but I quite literally have zero preference. The only thing I will ever stand being called tabula rasa for.

Quality vs. Quantity –

Like most judges, I will value quality much higher than quantity. Don’t try to win just by overwhelming your opponents with 12 generic DAs. As an aside – if you think there is an abuse of evidence (cards are cut abusively, dates are wrong, etc etc) call it out as soon as you spot it in your speech and I will review it.

Kicking Args –

If you want to get rid of an argument, just say you’re kicking it. If you don’t address it, it is dropped and automatically flows to your opponents, making your life hard. Don’t run a time wasting argument just to kick it (generic T’s just to 'test the aff'). If you kick something in the 2NC, bring it up during your 1NR just as a note.

CX –

While I don’t flow CX, I do listen to what is being said. If you want something from CX to be evaluated when I score, say it in your speech. I only pay attention to CX if there is a miscommunication, abuse, or some sort of error.

In TFA, I don’t care if you do open CX or prompt or anything, just don’t overshadow your partner. If you want to be the sole speaker, do LD (which is basically CX at this point).

Flashing –

If you flash, please include me. My email is at the top of my paradigm.

Disclosing -

I do not disclose, please don’t ask. Tournaments don't like it and I don't like making the people that give me money angry.

Thanks for reading my long winded nonsense… Bring me a Red Bull during an IRL tournament and I'll cashapp you for it :D Currently on a caffeine purge! Thank you to those that have offered in the past lol

Last Updated – September 14th, 2023

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.

Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)

Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be

3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh

i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared

IN CONGRESS:
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority

I'm a traditional LD judge. Value and Criterion are the most important aspects of LD, so I weigh those heavily on my ballot. Explain your philosophy and terminology to me so I can have a full grasp of your arguments.

As far as speaking goes, if I cannot physically hear/understand your arguments, I cannot flow your arguments. I can keep up with spreading although I would prefer not to. Sign post your args so a clean flow can be kept, and I can organize your arguments easily. 

Manners have a part to play in round. Your behavior will be reflected on the ballot. 

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

CX:

Most of my debate experience is in CX. I debated in high school and judge in college, however, I do not have much exposure to the 2022 topic.

I am a tab judge, prefer tech over truth, and I am okay with spreading but clarity over speed (be clear on tags). Most of my ballot will come down to weighing impacts of each arg, so please keep that in mind.

Use your rebuttals to tell me what to vote on nd why at the end of the round.

I do like traditional style debate, but I am able/willing to hear progressive arguments. I am fine with Ks. I have heard most theory and lit, but please just be thorough and clear in your ev. I may not be familiar with newer Ks, or Ks tailored to the 2022 resolution.

I vote on mostly all args as long as you give me a reason to.

DAs are good. No real specifics on them. I just don't like generic DAs.

CPs are good. Sometimes I feel they are redundant, especially some PICs but I'll vote on them if you want me too.

Ts are iffy. I don't vote on most Ts because they usually are a stretch. Also I don't buy loss of education or ground args that much.

Ks are okay. Be thorough on the ev and make sure your impacts and alts make sense.

Please do impact calc. It'll make weighing the round so much easier.

I would like to be in the email chain/speechdrop if there is one: hannah.kim1026@gmail.com

I'll answer any other questions in the round about paradigms.

Evidence: Speechdrop.net is preferred. If you are the first person to a room, please set up a Speechdrop and put the code on the board or in the chat. If we have to use email include me on the chain: alexandernmaier@gmail.com

Prep: Prep stops when you have uploaded the doc to SpeechDrop or sent the email. Asking me to stop prep when you still have to save and upload the doc may your impact speaker points.

If you "cut the card there" or amend your evidence in round, I will almost certainly ask for a corrected doc. This will impact your prep time. If you include what you plan to read in the order you plan to read it, everything should be okay. If you skip a couple of cards and make it clear, that should be okay. However, if anyone in the round --your competitor(s) or judge(s)-- asks for a document of what you just read vs what you posted be ready to provide that.

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. Please agree to something before the round starts and do not argue over it.

It is my philosophy that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and tell me why they are winning. Please provide clear roadmaps and citations. I try my hardest not to be an "interventionist judge". Essentially that means that I won't do your work as a debater for you. If you extend a card, explain why it applies. I understand lots of arguments. There are other arguments that I have trouble understanding. The best thing that you can do is be as clear as possible. Super specific topic related jargon isn't appreciated. I understand most debate related jargon. If you want to perm something tell me why and how. If you are running a K, make what you are saying clear. I prefer strong arguments over aggressive debaters and can distinguish between the two.

The rules are the rules. I read the rules for every competition that I am a part of. I follow the rules. However, if the rules are violated it is your job as a debater to argue the violation. If, for example in LD, the affirmative is not topical and the negative does not address it, neither will I.

"I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you." Jared Anderson wrote this in his judging paradigm. I have tried to write it differently, but I always circle the rim of plagiarism. So I thought it would be appropriate to leave it as it is.

I like T arguments and procedural arguments in general (don't go crazy, but go for it). If you leave it up to me, I will nearly always default to net benefits. If you tell me why I should judge differently, I will. Weighing does a lot for me, it will help my ballot.

Thoughts on decorum, speaking, and a bit about me:

1) Be polite in round. I don't care if you are aggressive on cross-ex or towards your opponent's argument. However, I will not tolerate ad homonem attacks. Address the arguments, not the person. At the least be prepared to lose speaker points. If you cross a line, I will stop the round and inform you that you have earned a loss. Then I will speak to your coach. I have only ever had this happen once. The debater honestly did not know the difference between the two. After a verbal warning from me, it stopped. I spoke with the coach about it and I will talk to your coach if it happens. Basically, don't be a jerk.

2) I am comfortable with most degrees of speed on read evidence. Take a breath to emphasize your tags and citations. When you get to your analytics, slow it down a bit. If you are charging through and I cannot understand, I cannot flow it. If I say "clear" please slow down. If I have to clear you more than once, it may effect your speaker points. Open level speed is fine, as long as your speech is understandable. For carded evidence go full speed. For analytics go at 70% of your speed. Emphasize your tags and cites so it doesn't sound like the rest of your spread. I like clear pre-round road maps and in-round road mapping.

3) My experience with debate has been mostly as a coach. I did a brief stint in policy during my undergrad. Additionally, I have taught (and currently teach) speech and argumentation courses. My BA is in Journalism with a minor in Philosophy. My MA is in Communication Studies where I focused on Political and Religious Rhetoric as well as Mass & Electronic Media. That being said, I have read A LOT of the philosophy and the scholars that pop up in rounf. While I might not be familiar with a particular author, I nearly always recognize the philosophical and rhetorical underpinnings in round.

Please ask questions! If you have questions for me prior to the round or after I have disclosed, please ask. I will give you as detailed an answer to your question as I can. I would also ask that you please do not record rounds without the EXPRESS permission of your competitor(s) and judge(s).

Having judged a lot of rounds from my home. I have all of my flow paper sitting in a pile. The pile of flow is from all levels of competition, NFA-LD's National Final Round, Middle School PF, and almost everything in between (including IE's but that doesn't get flowed. More of a note taking situation). Reviewing my flow sheets was an effort to see how my ballots develop, I wanted to look at how I evaluate the discussion created in round. My ballots go with my flow. It sounds cheesy, but it's true. I write A LOT on my flow and as the round goes on I note clash and which arguments I think won over another argument and why (usually it's just the cite bc I'm keeping up with Open debaters who spread in a fast and articulate manner so I have to keep up! Anyway, looking at my flow: I see that as the round goes on and then after round, before my ballot is in and I give a verbal RFD, when I'm considering the round there are some very simple but difficult to master things that will "get my ballot". Clear articulation and development of a debater (or debaters) arguments along with good extensions seem to be the determining factor a lot of the time. A read cite followed by and explanation or further development of the point is helpful. In any debate event, not just the carded ones, my ballots most often go to the side who can best direct my flow to their arguments and their opponent's arguments. I hope that is a helpful insight into what I like to see in round and how my ballots are decided. I wrote this after judging a really good middle school Policy round, started to flip back through the rounds on the floor of my office and noticed a pattern.

Arguments that I prefer include T, evidence attacks, and really solid Ks.

School Affiliation: Graduate of Brown University; former competitor with Big Spring High School.

Experience: 5-year speech and debate competitor with Big Spring ISD; I was predominantly an LD debater, but I have experience in CX/PF/Congress as well as DX/IX/OO.

Speed: Speech and debate is an educational, public speaking extracurricular. While I can handle spreading, I discourage it. There is a difference between speaking quickly to get your arguments on the board and speaking so fast that no one can understand you. If I cannot understand you, I will not flow your argument. To help with clarity, please tagline your arguments with clear markers (i.e: Contention 1, subpoint A, etc.).

Types of Arguments: I support "traditional" debate in every sense of the word. I will evaluate rounds by how well debaters stick to the resolution and debate the nuance of it using their value and criterion. Consequently, I am not a fan of CX-like argumentation (this includes, but is not limited to, arguments concerning topicality, plans and counterplans, and kritiks). These arguments are never persuasive to me. Stick to the resolution, back up your argumentation with solid statistics and analysis, and compare them to your opponents'. In the end, give me voters. That is how you can win my ballot.

Speaker Points: As I mentioned with speed, clarity and persuasive argumentation are at the core of this activity. To receive high speaker points, be clear, concise, persuasive, and respectful (both in terms of treatment of others and the language you use). Speed will never add points, but it certainly will take them away if I cannot understand you.

Email Chain: I do not want to be added to email chains. The presentation of your case and subsequent points is how I will flow and consider arguments. As a result, communication is key.

Disclosure: I do not disclose who won my ballot or speaker points.

Hey, I am Reid (he/they).

You should def put me on the email chain: Reid.pinckard1@gmail.com

Personal Statement:

I love this space (even though there are a lot of issues that we all need to fix). Therefore I will do anything and everything to keep rounds that I judge safe and educational. If there is harmful language used, a lack of TW, a disregard for an individual’s identity, etc. I will dock your speaks. If these issues are persistent and continue to be harmful I will vote you down regardless of if the flow says you won. This is the only time I feel judge intervention is necessary, and I think this should ring true for all rounds. Other than these things, remember, this space is supposed to be fun and educational, so revel in the rounds you win or lose because there is always something to be learned. I want the best for you as a judge, so you do you. :)

Background:

I debated and did speech for four years at Mount Pleasant High School in Texas (2017-2021). I am currently at the University of Arkansas  (Class of ‘25, WOO PIG!!). I mainly did LD and extemp. I competed on the UIL, TFA, and Nats circuit and I would occasionally compete at TOC tournaments. I went to TFA State and Nationals several times and did well at district and regionals on the UIL circuit.

Arguments:

Traditional:

This is what I started with and I respect a good traditional debate. I vote first on FW and if that flow is too messy or there isn’t enough to vote on I defer to the contention debate/offense. Please crystallize your arguments and condense in the 1AR and in the 1NR. This makes it easier to flow for me, and makes it easier on you especially with a 4 minute 1AR.

DAs and CPs:

I ran these and I am comfortable with them. Again, don’t waste time going for every DA or CP you read please condense. Tell me what you are going for before you begin your speech.

Topicality:

I think T args are cool, that being said I didn’t run T very often. I do understand it, so feel free to read it.

Theory:

When it comes to theory, I also didn’t run this very much either. If I did, it was disclosure. Theory is not my favorite thing to judge but if you want run it, be my guest. I don’t know how comfortable I would be voting on blippy theory args, so make sure that it adds substance.

Tricks:

DO NOT HAVE A TRICKS DEBATE IN FRONT OF ME. These were my least favorite rounds to debate, and I rarely found myself having a good time. While I think tricks debaters are good at what they do, please do something else you are good at.

Kritiks:

I loved running kritikal args while in high school, so please run them if you feel comfortable doing so. I ran abolition, set col, anthro, and ableism. Beyond the K args I listed, I probably don’t know your authors so don’t expect me to immediately understand what you’re reading. If I don’t understand the K, I won’t vote on it.

Pet Peeves:

- If you say “for a brief off time road map” I will look at you as if you are crazy. Please, for the love of all that is holy, don’t say this.

- If you have a condescending tone or continuously cut people off in CX when unnecessary.

- If your CX questions are absurd or reference outside opinions regarding one’s personal life (this didn’t happen often to me, but when it did it was either embarrassing or just plain weird).

- Making egregious faces when your opponent is speaking.

Decorum:

- I think it’s cool if you can be a good debater, nice, and funny. If you are all 3 I’ll probably boost your speaks because that’s the type of person I can enjoy listening too.

- I love puns. So if you can be “punny” go for it. That may also boost your speaks.

- If you can put me on really good music, that may also boost your speaks (probs not but I am always looking for new stuff to listen to).

- If you can reference a Megan Thee Stallion or Nicki Minaj lyric I will most likely boost your speaks.

Extemp:

I did extemp on the UIL, TFA, and Nats circuit. Sometimes I would do TOC tournaments as well. The structure of your speech is totally up to you, but I do recommend using seven sources as that was how I was taught and I feel is a pretty standard and universal amount. Other than that, have fun and bring something new to the round.

Congress:

I rarely did Congress, but I think it’s a pretty cool event. I’ll try to evaluate your args combined with how you speak rather than just if you’re a pretty speaker. Please don’t be condescending or make weird faces curing CX. It just makes this event so much less enjoyable. Other than these things, have fun and learn something new!!

Speech:

You do you. It’s your speech and I am here to learn something new. Offer me a different way of viewing an issue, idea, philosophy, etc. Being able to show me that you have a good understanding of what you are talking about and that it offers some value to how others live their life makes your speech so much more valuable and interesting.

Hey! My name is Abhived and I am a Sophomore at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign!

I am very very expressive. I frown, stick my eyebrow up, and do other rlly obvious things when I don't like an argument. Please do not go for said argument. I will note vote on the silence pic or any other argument that was not read.

No Google Docs! Download the Doc and send it in the chain or file share.

Please slow down!I have not thought about this activity since mid-2022. This means you should go half your speed and do a lot more judge instructions if you want to win.

The less time you take in your speech to win the higher speaks you will get. If you win the debate with more than half of the time left in your speech you will get a W30 in front of me, regardless of who your opponent is.

If you are debating against T/Theory in the 2A extend case. Bare minimum.

My email is apulapaka6@gmail.com

I am a good judge if:

1. You are good at the K
2. You enjoy fun tricks + friv theory debates
3. You are really good at explaining your stock Phil position
4. RVIs!
5. 2N on Framework
6. Benatar
7. You wrap the round up cleanly and quickly

I am a mid judge if:

1. You are meh at explaining your phil
2. You are a legit theory/T debater

I am a bad judge if:

1. You are an intense policy debater. I judged one good policy round this year and it made my head hurt.
2. We are in an intense phil v phil debate
3. You over adapt and are reading buzzwords for a K that no one understands
4. You go too fast- I am so so bad at flowing

A couple more things:

1. No misgendering- speaks will get slashed after the second time and I will be more than happy to down you if your opponent asks me to
2. Plz don't read the Small Schools Disad on T fw- I think that the argument is poop
3. Postrounding is good. If I can not defend my decision I probably did not make the right decision + you are holding me accountable. Don't be super rude and we won't have any issues.

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

1. Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
2. Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Please use a loud voice. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch. I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. Connect it back to the framework. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.