2022 — Friday online Sat Roseville HS, MN/US
Friday Rok/Nov/JV Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello! I've been the Teacher Coach at Central for the better part of the last seven years. I have no prior debate experience, and as such I tend to judge only Rookie and Novice rounds. Here are a few things you should know:
-If you're reading unclearly, I'll ask you to slow down. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't put your arguments on my flow
-Clash is extremely important. Make sure you are able to argue directly against what your opponent is saying
-I'm old school. If you're the aff, you need to win all stock issues
-You need to be really, REALLY convincing (basically perfect) to argue T against a plan from the packet
-If your terminal impact is nuclear war or extinction I will be very curious as to your thought process. And no, nuclear weapons being used DOES NOT lead to total extinction. If it did, we'd be extinct
Have a good one, and I'll see you in round.
I vote on the comparative offense of the 2nr and 2ar. I will vote how I'm told to as long as an argument is inoffensive. I'm a Tabula Rasa judge, but if I'm not told how to vote then I default to hypothesis testing. This more or less means I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense to me on the flow. Tell me how I should be voting, or how an argument should be weighed. I'm okay if an argument is "silly" as long as it offers genuine offense. I don't want to watch a team run an argument they can't win on. I put a lot of weight on the flow as a judge. I love substance, and so it's easier to get my ballot the more you play towards your flow. The more line by line, the better. If I don't understand the story, I can't evaluate the flow.
I love K's and K aff's, but I want a lot of link and alt work done so that I can understand the solvency mechanism of the K, and the internal links between the alt and the impacts. Reading 1 off framework " we weren't prepared for the aff in response to CRT, queerpes, etc is insufficient. I don't like when the framework flow is used as a tool to punish teams for daring to speak for themselves or the subaltern. I prefer when framework is used as a contention of the aff's methods. As long as you don't just ignore the 1ac and say they should lose because k affs are unfair, you should be fine. TVA, cede the political das, just anyway you can use the framework flow to generate substantive offense against the affirmative. For debaters running Ks on the neg, I want you to spend a lot of time on your links. It helps prove the mutual exclusivity between the alt and the perm, but it also proves why your K matters. I will vote on the impacts of the K turning an aff, even if the K doesn't solve for its alt. I believe if an affirmatives epistemology is harmful, those harms will arise within the world of the aff. That being said, my ballot for the K will often be determined by how well the link and alt work was done. This often puts a larger burden on the person running the K, so I'm going to be less persuaded by the idea that K itself is abusive.
T similarly should be doing work to be about the negative proving in round abuse, unless they can prove that the limits that include the aff cause abuse in other rounds. I want you to be fleshing out the T flow if you're going for it. I want the T flow to have some level of strategic advantage over the negative besides being a time skew.
This is more specific to local tournaments, but because I like substance, I also dislike when negatives run a lot of offcase for the sole reason of outspreading a team. If you are running more offcase, you're just putting more pressure on yourself to put work and ink on these flows during the block.
I'm a lot happier with your DAs if they offer a brink. Your internal link chain should be as short as possible.
Cross ex's are speeches. I don't flow them as intensely, but I believe them to be binding. Links can be developed from a cross ex. Offense can be generated from a cross ex. That being said, cross-ex is a question-and-answer format. You shouldn't be arguing a point during cross-ex that you're about to argue word for word in your next speech. This may go without saying, but being rude or dismissive to your opponents, or lying about your arguments hurts your speaker points and the activity.
My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know.
I was raised in Minnesota debate, which means my entire career has been with negation theory. I've only flowed one stock issues debate.
Speaker points: I have three main sites where speaks are anchored. (Under this system 28.5 is a great speech, a couple of mistakes)
25= Offensive argument/Poor behavior
If there are any questions about a round, or anything please email me at email@example.com
Background - I was a policy debater at Rosemount high school for four years, including being a policy debate captain my junior and senior years. While at Rosemount, I debated at both local and national circuit tournaments. I am previously worked as a coach at Farmington High School in (you guessed it) Farmington Minnesota. Presently, I'm in Moorhead at MSUM. I have judged high school tournaments before, mostly policy, but also a tiny bit of LD and like two rounds of PF.
To answer this ahead of time---yes, I want to be on your email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
My name is Erica. Please call me Erica.
I use they/them pronouns.
As far as other "pre-round" questions go: Speed is fine. Tag-team CX is fine (so long as you let your partner answer and ask their own questions.) If you are Maverick, please let me know, and we can come up with the appropriate accommodations for you.
General Philosophy: I believe debate is, at core, an intellectual game where nothing "real" happens. However, that game has to have rules in order for us to play the game, and those rules need to be fair. Left to my own devices, I am a liberal policy-maker where I will weigh advantages vs. disadvantages and where I will look at my flow to see which team provided the better REASONS to believe their interpretation of the story of the round. Also, simply because you read a card that is a page long does not mean that you have provided a warrant for your argument. You have simply read me a really long card. Just because you say something doesn't instantly make it true.
I believe it is your job to explain to me what the warrant is in the argument you are making. I am most impressed by debaters who take the time to explain their position, analyze how their position interacts with the other positions in the round, and why their interpretation of this interaction is superior.
I am a fan of debaters being good human beings. I think it should go without saying, but being kind, polite and remembering that we are all people goes a long way in my book. If you are debating a less experienced team, there is no glory in crushing them into the ground. Remember, you were also inexperienced at one point.
In addition, I am telling you now: you need to respect the pronouns of the other people in the round. I will not stand for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, fatphobia or ableism in this space. I do not tolerate arguments that are harmful, disrespectful, malicious or any argument that has a directly adverse effect on your opponents. Period.
I will treat you with respect, and as so, I expect you to treat your opponents, your partner, and your judge (me), with respect.
While I am a policy-maker and they aren't my favorite, I will entertain most Ks. I am good with Cap/Neolib, Security, and the like. High theory K's are more iffy, not because I think they're stupid or invalid, but simply because I have difficulty understanding them. I will listen to them, but you had better do a really really good job of explaining them to me. I never really debated high theory Kritiks, so my knowledge of them is somewhat limited. Do with that information what you will.
Now, if you do run a K, please know what you're talking about. I take issue with debaters who simply read Ks to read Ks and who have zero understanding of the authors intent or ideology. I promise you, I can usually tell. Also, please don't try to guilt me into voting for your K because it is the "right thing to do", I really really don't vibe with that. Another big pet-peeve of mine is Ks that are full of flowery language and complex rhetoric but that do nothing. I believe that, if you do run a K, your alt has to have some kind of actual (tangible?) effect. I do accept mindset shifts (as they can potentially cause an actual change) but they need to have some kind of way to prove to me that said shift will take actually take place.
If you are running any identity-politics arguments, you need to be kind.
I like debaters who give me roadmaps. Please give me a roadmap.
Bonus points if you make me laugh.
If you have other questions, or concerns, please ask. I am always here to help!
i am sandy and i use THEY/THEM/ELLE pronouns <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 please and thank you
2022-23 is my tenth year in debate with the mnudl!!! exciting stuff!!!
- second year as the novice coach for minneapolis south !!! (<3)
- debate for roosevelt h.s. in south minneapolis !!! (<3)
big picture > minutia
i would say i am a pretty "get down to the fundamentals" person. what does this mean?
- tag team is fine but high five when you do it and you'll get bonus speaks
- hyper-technical strategies, strange theory, or generally weird strategies do not usually make it onto any of my RFDs.
- i'm looking for the impact debate on all flows (including framework, T/theory, kritikal or policy; doesn't matter, gimme impacts).
- i'm looking for coherent and competitive internal link chains.
- i'm looking for clear advocacy solvency (on both AFF and NEG, if applicable) that's consistently explained + extended.
- i'm looking for arguments/impacts to be consistently contrasted (and/or compared, i.e. in a perm debate) to convince me to vote AFF/NEG.
all to say, my flow is Fine. if you write my ballot for me, then i can continue being a lazy judge.
(the laziness is a pedagogical choice!!!)
- really unenthusiastic about silly theory arguments. save aspec debates for marshall steele. (exception 1: sometimes debates devolve into theory because that is what Must happen. that's okay, but ... :( i'll be grumpy. exception 2: rosebowl)
- i was a k debater in high school. which is to say, if you're curious about kritiks, want feedback on kritikal strategies, etc. then feel free! i'd love to help with more specific comments/ideas -- especially with afropess, setcol, and/or queer theory. this is not to say that i'm a k hack or that i don't understand more policy-leaning strategies. do whatever you want to do.
- i've got some auditory processing problems, so please try to be as clear as possible! i'm out of practice from listening to rly fast spreading. that being said, do not worry, i am not a complete lay judge about it. just keep it clear!
- DEFINE YOUR ACRONYMS THE FIRST TIME YOU USE THEM
- as opposed to abbie "big A" amundsen (<3), i am a big fan of overviews!
have fun! be nice! be organized! that's all it takes.
I did policy debate at GBS for 4 years where I qualified to the TOC once and then at UMN for 2 years where I qualified to the NDT twice. I have been both a 2n and 2a in both high school and college
Varsity/JV Coach at Washburn, MN 2021-present
Some people get too caught up in every argument that you lose the goal of how to win. Don't give a speech where you just extend your stuff and respond because they said things but instead recognize your paths to the ballot and theirs.
I think judges should vote for the team that was more convincing. There are 2 elements here truth and tech. I think tech is more important but truth can make tech easier. Like warming good is winnable but the truth advantage warming bad has makes it easier for them to win. Ethos in my view is apart of tech but even if you view it as different it still is apart of convincing although not necessary as many teams who are bad at ethos can still win.
It is your job to implicate the opponents evidence. Iv never liked losing to an ev incite the other team didn't say so I am not going to do that UNLESS there is a squabble over it.
Ks (both sides)
I am starting with this as I think it reveals a lot about one's view over debate compared to any other area.
I view debate as a game which can have meaning put into it to do whatever the K says. This then begs the question of fairness as an impact which I logically don't get why it wouldn't be one. The claim typically is fairness is good for fairness sake but that applies to everything UNLESS you provide a moral model for the judge to use. So instead I typically find it more convincing when K teams don't say it is not an impact and instead say that viewing fairness as a good is a moral wrong (which is what the DAs are). So just do impact calc between the DAs and fairness I.E. fairness has no intrinsic good and only extrinsic goods which are less desirable (probably don't say that because not everyone knows but it functionally means intrinsic goods are those that promote one's living compared to extrinsic rewards which are like accolades that fairness allows. This then makes it easy to say intrinsic rewards where we enable and make our own success is better than relying on competition for the few extrinsically hedonistic goals).
I also often find myself in awe with policy 2acs/1ncs which typically drop entire portions of the K but somehow gets away with it. I think K teams need to take more advantage of this and also more strongly contest classic bad policy arguments. Like almost all TVAs are untopical (this is different if it is a good one as those are round winning) or have popular interps that make it untopical (like almost ever topic has a T interp to make ever aff untopical), conflicting world views being tossed around (especially in IR where teams read liberalism good on the K and a realism based aff), shifts away from major points of cases and more.
I think in most cases evenly debated the policy team will win (probably 60-40 or 55-45) which I do think is showcased by the results. Typically K teams need to win a lot of their world view for almost 60% of their arguments being useful where policy teams can just stick either to T/framework or their case and framework and win on either a bunch of cuts or a single big one. This is not to say you can go all in on just ontology or whatever in the 2ar/2nr but instead recognize what the other team needs to win for them to gain access to the ballot. Is it framework and links you can pretty easily win just by beating debate being a research method and the perm to resolve the links (or if the alt is kicked then if u win framework there is no way to fix current violence).
Quick Important Update--as I read this back it seems like I am worse for the K than I think I am. I am just grumpy and things frustrate me but if you out debate the other team on the flow iv historically and will continue to vote for you
Love these. I feel like there is a curve where debaters don't care enough about impact framing/turns case, then they care too much, and then they learn how it is a tool for you to win. It isn't a silver bullet but more so operates as adding a weight to the scale. How impactful it is depends on the round and it sometimes is the silver bullet but just not as often as me and some of my peers thought it was.
Judge kick DOESN'T MATTER UNLESS the perm shields, the perm links, or there is offense to the cp. This is because judge kick is ONLY useful for the neg and ONLY WHEN the CP negatively impact the neg team THAT RARELY HAPPENS. I really don't get why if I think the CP doesn't solve but it doesn't implicate the debate why my decision changes. Often times I found myself watching rounds where after the decision teams ask judges if judge kick would change anything but in almost all cases it wouldn't. So yeah Ill judge kick in this instance.
The real question is would I judge kick IF THE CP IMPLICATES THE DEABTE. Depends on how the condo debate goes 2ACs that are 5-10 seconds probably won't get you this. If it is the bare minimum for arguments tho in the 1AR I am likely to not kick. I think this is due to me wanting to reward 2ac foresight of more condo due to an offensive CP strategy.
Love me a case debate I think 2ac's on case are way too blippi since judges just hear the short hand through the debate and let the 2ar get away with nonsense. Often times I stood up and gave a 2ac case in 30 seconds knowing it just doesn't matter to most judges. Because of this I will shift to letting some get away (I think it is unfair to force debaters to rapidly change for my taste). I do think the neg needs to call teams out on this as one of UMN's teams got a lot of success by in depth case debate in response to short 2acs.
Big fan!! I did both sides so not much err neg/aff bias. I think it can be blocked out but typically best T speeches go off the blocks for a prolonged time to debate interp v interp.
Reasonability is offense for why T debates are bad but it needs either a good we meet or a good reason why your c/is are so similar (imagine subs is 10% vs 11%).
If the neg is even on the flow ur not going to lose on this unless you are egregious. Maybe abusive CPs will be rejected but typically those are beatable in easier ways.
Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument. and dont read tricks please :)))))
Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.
For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else
I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.
I do not really understand the trend of reading soft left affs in policy vs policy rounds but if it is working for you I am certainly willing to vote on them.
Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.
I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.
I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.
Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can probably be easily convinced of either side.
I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.
I think they are usually pretty good arguments but I feel as though they are often times assumed to come prior for no particular reason and I wont just arbitrarily do that for you. I need a substantial amount of explanation for me to feel comfortable voting on denser theories like afropessimism, baudrillard, lacan etc.
I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.
Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)
dont read them please :)
- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.
- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.
- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!
- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue
I am an IE coach with limited experience in parlimentary and LD debate. I can generally keep track of flowm but I can't always follow the jargon. Slower is probably a little better.
Yes, put me on the email chain - email@example.com
Please refer to me as my name and not as "judge" in round.
University of Iowa 2025
Farmington High school 2021
If you're looking to do college debate feel free to reach out and ask about Iowa debate, I'd love to answer any questions!
Topics I've debated:
Immigration - 2018/19
Arm Sales - 2019/20
Criminal Justice Reform - 2020/21
Antitrust laws - 2021/22
Legal Personhood - 2022/23
1. Clarity over speed - this is even more important in the era of online debating, and you should always send your analytics in speech docs
2. When debating case, the first thing I look to is solvency. If I conclude that your aff doesn't do what you say it does, then I have no reason to vote for the affirmative. If solvency becomes a core issue in the debate, I will always go and read the aff's cards.
3. The neg needs to explain what their advocacy on the Kritik or Counterplan does for me to weigh it, it really boils down to "If I don't know what it is, I won't weigh it"
4. I am a good judge to go for Topicality or Theory in front of so long as you can explain things sufficiently and really impact it out - for novices, "Packet checks T" is not an argument
5. Cx is a speech, so use it well to attack your opponents while propping yourself up - tag team is fine so long as its not your partner taking up the whole cross period when you are supposed to be asking the questions
6. Do not read objectively bad procedurals in round, this means stuff like arguing USFG is faceters guild or bad links in the citations when you forgot to remove a period at the end (it shows that you don't care for debating, but rather you just want to waste your opponents time). I find these arguments to be detrimental to debate as an activity because it distracts from critical thinking and good argumentation, to being caught up in semantics that really don't matter. However, if the procedurals are based in good faith I am more sympathetic to voting on it. If your procedurals are in bad faith, I will dock speaks for it, I have no tolerance for it anymore.
7. I do not judge kick unless instructed to, if the other team argues that I should not judge kick after instructed to, then they should explain in detail the reasons why judge kicking is bad. If judge kick bad is argued, I am very sympathetic to agreeing that it's bad and end up not judge kicking the position. You read it, and now you must stick with it.
8. Tech > Truth - However, both are important in a debate round, and I can be swayed to evaluate Truth>Tech if you warrant out why viewing the round this way is inherently better
9. If you have to ask if there are any theoretical reasons to reject the team, one of two things is true, either you weren't paying attention, or the other team isn't giving enough importance to them. Reasons to reject the team should be at the forefront of the debate if you actually want me to reject the team on something.
10. My general philosophy on evidence is that you should read less evidence that is of higher quality rather than reading more evidence. Debate is a game of arguments, not one of speed. I am also very sympathetic to teams that rehighlight the other teams evidence because I believe that it's the evidence that should be making the arguments in a debate, and if the evidence you choose to read contradicts itself (even if it's part of the same source that you do not read), then you shouldn't be reading that card, and the teams that point this out and argue it well, will see an increase in speaker points and an easier path to the ballot.
I, as a judge will not intervene on something that can be considered an ethics violation without the opposing team raising the issue in round as well as clearly stating that they are making an ethics challenge. If/When that occurs, the round will stop, and I will assess the alleged violation. If I find that a violation has occurred, the challengers will win the round, and the team that committed the ethics violation will receive at most 25 speaker points. In the event that I find that no ethics violation has occurred, the challengers will lose the round and receive at most 25 speaker points.
Specifics to off case positions
Theory - I believe that theory is under utilized in debate, a theory debate should end up being about in round harms and methods and models of debate. I enjoy a good theory debate, this does not mean you should read theory in front of me, especially if you don't know how to impact it out. I typically lean aff on condo and disclosure theory, but will easily vote neg on condo if they argue arbitrariness of interps well. I do believe that theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but, there are a few exceptions to this, especially if the other team does not make the argument that it's not a reason to reject the team.
K - Going for the K can be a bit of a daunting task, however if you can use the affs evidence to point out a link and can explain how the alt functions and solves then you will be in a pretty good position. The aff should always perm the K. I'm familiar with most kritiks that you'll probably run, but it's always a good idea to explain things especially if you are running a more obscure or high theory K. I also find that a lot of K teams get trapped in an echo chamber of their alt and assume that they don't need to explain the alt on a more general level. Being able to clearly explain your alt in a way that everyone can understand will greatly increase your chances of winning the alt debate (assume you're explaining it to someone who has never done debate). Yes your Baudrillard
T - Topicality comes down to competing interpretations and methods of debate, your aff simply being topical isn't enough to win on T, you need to prove why the resolution should include your aff. As stated above, "Novice packet checks T" is not an argument and I won't consider it, instead, as the aff, you should challenge T head on instead of trying to skirt the question of Topicality. I believe that a more limited topic is always better than a broad topic, it allows for more depth and conversation about the topic, and it encourages innovation and better research for both the aff and the neg instead of finding some obscure topic that's impossible to research. I also do not believe that "plan text in a vacuum" is a good "We meet" argument, it encourages bad and vague plan writing. A good limits argument should include a case list with explanation on why what their topic includes that yours doesn't is bad.
CP - Every CP needs to have a net benefit for me to weigh it. You need to have warranted analysis on the net benefit and how the CP solves. Solvency deficits, when argued well can easily take down a CP. As the aff, you always need to perm the CP and extend the perm throughout the whole debate, If there is no perm on the CP you need to win a large solvency deficit.
DA - Weigh the impacts of the DA to the impacts of the aff, I personally like link debates and find them to be the best way to challenge or defend a DA, that being said, this does not absolve you from doing impact work, if the link isn't clearly contested the impact is the next thing I look at, so focus more on the impacts, because if the DA doesn't link, the impacts of the DA are moot.
Case - See top level point 2 for aff stuff. For the neg, impact turn everything, if they say "x" is good, then say "x" is bad, if you have the cards for it, then I will listen (unless it's so untrue that it becomes harmful). I will listen to even the most absurd impact turns and vote on them, but only if you can actually convince me that they are true.
K affs - I am not the best judge to read these in front of, that being said, I have ran K affs before. My general philosophy is that in order to win while running a K aff, you must do the following
1. Prove why the K aff is better than following the resolution (unless you are reading a topical K aff, in which case, you'll just need to explain what makes it topical if it's not obvious)
2. Win on FW and on how your model of debate is better, the easier it is to understand your framework and the model of debate it proposes, the more likely you are to win it in front of me.
3. Do enough work on the impact/advocacy level to prove that not only is the impact/advocacy necessary, but also why we should first focus on that and not the general impact scenarios in typical debates.
4. Avoid relying on K and FW tricks to win, I greatly dislike them and I find them to ruin the spirit of debate. Debate is and should continue to be focused on education, by relying on tricks, it takes away from this education and skills building.
5. On Framework, SLOW DOWN, I'd rather you make less arguments that are smart and well thought out, than make a lot of arguments just to fill the flow. Also, if you are reading pre-made arguments, send them out, going fast and not sending what you read is super problematic and I find that a ton of teams do this as a way to win, and I find this practice to be detrimental and contributes to exclusionary practices in debate.
My views on debate
1. I believe that debate is a competitive game that can have some real world implications through rhetoric and discussions of how different forms of knowledge and power shape someone's lived experiences
2. This is a reading and research activity - attack your opponents warrants and author qualifications but if you are going to do this, make it clear why I should reject that piece of evidence. If you are going to run a Kritik in front of me, the best way to win the link debate is to use the aff's 1AC evidence to prove a link.
3. I have no tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Homophobia etc. in debate. This is an educational safe space and everyone should be treated with the upmost respect. If I find that you are making the space unsafe or problematic, I will dock speaker points, and if it's bad enough, I will drop the team. I find that the debate space can be very problematic at times and that it drives people out of the activity, and I want to ensure that this does not continue.
4. Actively debating is a performance and you are the performer, the time is yours when you speak and you may use that time however you want, but you should have a justification as to why you do the things you do.
5. At the end of the day, debate should always be something you do for fun. Debate can be tiring for everyone, so maintaining civility in the debate should always be the top priority. You don't know what your opponents have been through, or how they feel about debate, and I would hate if you contributed to why people leave this activity.
Speaker points are mostly based off of the vibes in round. Everyone starts at a 28.5, debating well and being nice will increase your speaks, conversely, poor debating and being mean/hostile will lower your speaks. If you get below a 27, that means you either made a massive round ending mistake that should have been easy to spot, or you said something objectionable. If you get a 25, that means you either lost on an ethics violation, repeatedly said something in round that was objectionable and unethical, or said something about your opponents or myself that is beyond any doubt meant to demean, dehumanize, ostracize, or cause mental anguish.
Brief note for LD/PF: All of my experience is in policy debate. I am less familiar with the norms of other formats. I believe that I would be considered a larper in LD terms.
I was a college debater for Concordia Moorhead. I am comfortable judging both policy and critical arguments. Do note that I ran mostly biopower and cap, so I may not be as familiar with other kriticks. During the final rebuttals I want you to write my ballot for me. In other words, tell me the story of the debate round and why I should conclude that you have won. That means impact comparison, framing, and condensing the debate down to its core components.
I don't like it when debaters sacrifice clarity to speak faster. I will stop flowing if I have to call clear an excessive number of times. I also really don't like it when you slow down for the tag and speed up for the card body. To me, that says that your evidence isn't meaningful or significant and I should treat the body of cards as just filler. I will call speed if you're going too fast for me to flow.
I like it when you give a speech off your flow without any blocks.
Theory- I expect you to slow down for denser theory blocks. Otherwise, I cannot evaluate arguments I cannot write down. I will vote on theory, but I don't have any dogmatic stances on issues like conditionality or PIC/Ks.
The K- I enjoy k vs policy aff debates. I don't think you need an alt if you have won sufficient offense on their reps or epistemology, but a strong alt makes it easier to vote for you.
K affs- I will vote for K affs, but I expect robust answers to framework.
DAs/counterplan- I am waiting for the day an aff team puts theory voters on a politics DA.
Topicality- I have judged mostly novice this year, so I'm not up to date on the T meta. I want to see more T debate in Minnesota, so I will be happy to see some T.
Overall, good luck and have fun. I want debate to be a fun and educational experience for all participants. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Please include me in the email chain, but I try to avoid reading evidence unless absolutely needed.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. A little bit about me, I have a business degree focusing on economic and supply chain issues utilising computer software.
I debated for 7 years and have judged for close to 9 years. I work in hotel sales and also coach Miss Universe, Miss USA, and other national pageant systems in Question and Answer and interview.
For policy debaters, I allow tag team cross ex. Each team has an allotted 6 minutes for asking questions and answering questions. Please split it equally amongst the two of you. I do not care where you speak or when you speak but I just want it to be educational for the both of you.
I prefer to judge quality over quantity. If you can articulate your argumentation well and tell a good story you are most likely going to get high speaker points.
Any debater that has appeared before me they you will tell you three things. I move my rounds very quickly, I despise partners being rude or dismissive of each other and that I want you to enjoy yourself in round.
I am generally laid back and seek to only serve as a timekeeper for the most part. That being said I will intervene if necessary.
I am happy to explain argumentation or my decision process in depth after the end of a round or you can get a hold of my email and I will be in depth. Debate should be educational and I am here to educate and provide an insight and I am open to dialogue.
If I am judging an LD
Hi I'm tom and I go by He/Him pronouns. I am currently a coach at Roosevelt High school and have been debating for 7 years. I am currently a student at Augsburg.
Please add me to the email chain: Tommilmick@gmail.com
I have debated at all levels of debate and am very familiar with all arguments. For most of my time as a debater I was a strictly policy debater. My normal rounds would usual look like either a soft left policy arg on aff and a Cp and Da heavy neg. However in my last year of debate I heavily used Ks on both the aff and neg specifically Dino earth ( If you want to learn more or have any questions you can absolutly ask or email me about it i really enjoy it). My Kritik literature however is not super deep so there are plenty of terms in that space that I wont understand. I think debate is about having fun and making arguments that you truly care about and are intrested in.
I will vote for any form of argument (Except Baurillard Ks) you make but you have to give me clear reasons why and have a good foundation of evidence for it.
Hi! I'm sabeeh (he/him) and I'm a senior at Edina. I mainly do policy, but have done LD too! I have reached bid/outrounds in both events on the nat circ. You don't need to call me judge or anything, you can call me by my name. I split my policy and LD paradigm, but both are applicable.
MN Policy State Champ 22-23 -- Edina MG 4ever <3
please add me to the chain -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- if you have any questions before or after feel free to email
don't be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. i am far from the most formal judge - i'm barely older than y'all - don't worry about eye contact, clothing, etc - i care about good debating more than artificial chivalry.
I will try my best to keep my camera on, but if it's off make sure to ask if I'm ready before starting a speech. In an ideal world we would all have our cameras on, but I understand that isn't always possible so don't worry if you'd rather have it off. Please please please go a little slower - fuzzyness and shtuff make it so so hard to flow.
Tag team cx is fine - if you high-five every time you switch speakers (shamelessly stolen from Sandy Bolton Barrientos) i'll give you +1 speaks. Don't be mean in cross, being assertive is fine, but if you see me looking angry take it down a few notches - I will interject if it gets outta hand. Again I love seeing (and participating in) passionate and pointed cross, but there is a difference between talking over someone, and being determined.
I've competed on Arm Sales (19-20), CJR (20-21), Water (21-22), and NATO (22-23). I think individually I am more of a K debater, however my partnerships are typically flex. That being said, I have gone for a hard policy aff, a soft left aff, and a non-T/Kritical aff all in the same year - don't feel like you have to adapt for me.
I'm not ideologically opposed to most arguments, but don't read anything that will make the round an unsafe place. If it is questionable (spark, wipeout, etc), ask your opponents.
not a ton that needs to be said here - if you have any questions email me lol
My knowledge is mainly in queer pess, set col, militarism/imperialism, security, and cap. I can evaluate other Ks, but will just need more explanations. I've been on both sides of K v. FW debates, and don't think I have a huge preference or argumentative preferences. I will say if you go for something other than T-USFG against a Kaff in the 2nr, I'll boost your speaks by 1, and if it's not in the 1nc you'll get at least a 29.
I want to make this super clear - going for T in front of me will be an uphill battle. It is not that I am against it, but I think these debates get into tiny details really fast, and I get confused - please make my ballot as clear as possible. Make the violation clear, show me in round abuse.
I don't have a good number of condo that I will stand firmly by. I would probably say 3 if you asked me, but if you debate it well enough I'll vote on it. I think that condo is the only real reason to reject the team (aside from T), but I can be convinced otherwise. Also, I think supercharging condo with other reject the args (perf con, agent CPs, PICs bad, etc) is super compelling.
I don't think it is guaranteed that T comes before condo, but my threshold for T coming before condo is SUPER low.
1 - Ks
1 - Larp
2 - Trad
4/maybe should strike or use a dif strat - Phil/Tricks
*read my policy paradigm if you have time - should give you better insight
*if you are going for phil/tricks over explain
*without another fw or if fw is a wash i will default to util
*please please please give me a roadmap of the CONTENTIONS
Ok so I probs average at a 28.5 BUT
*if you say the opp. dropped something they didn't -.5 (-1.0 if you keep saying it or it's blatantly wrong)
*if you tell me you read my paradigm +.25
*if you opensource all rounds (and tell me) +.25
*if you say B.F.F.R in a speech +.25
*every time you count down before starting a timer -.25
*if you laugh (in a mean way) during cross or a speech I will tank your speaks.
I most likely will not vote on out-of-round events. However, if there is in-round behavior, feel free -- I'll still vote off the flow though so be prepared to stake the debate on it.
my pronouns are he/him
*my experience is in policy, if im judging you in a different category, please have patience
run whatever seems best to you, i won't automatically vote down any position (assuming you have the decency to keep things respectful - if what you're reading are arguing is harmful, that takes precedent over any debate rules)
most (not all) of the notes below are for the neg, i will vote for pretty much any aff that can prove they solve a problem that they have also proven is more important than that of the neg. i also like creativity, and am certainly not opposed to voting for a K-aff, policy gets stale sometimes anyways.
I'm most familiar with non-K debate, but as long as things make sense, i wont get too lost. you have to explain each part of your K flow for me to consider it voteable. if your alt solvency is talking about revolution, and your alt is a mental rejection, you would need to explain how those fit together.
continuing with alts, I need to know if you mean for the it to be a fiated action like "we go anarchist sicko mode and overthrow the state" or if it's in round and you achieve solvency by spreading that K to me (the judge) and the other debaters
if your tag is as long as the highlighted part of the card, you've done something horribly wrong and are making it actively more difficult to understand
affs who focus entirely on the link side of a K debate are generally not on top of things, obviously it can work, but its much more convincing if you can meet the K at a critical level instead of avoiding its content with a 10 foot pole. debate the whole K.
this is my favorite type of arg, especially against affs that force the neg to defend an awful status quo. your CP needs an explicit net benefit and generics such as states or actor cps are hard to do right and generally not very convincing. if your main net benefit is a solvency deficit you need to do as much work on harms as the aff did in the 1AC. teams who bring up perm theory are goated.
big stick DA's are lame and i will not buy a probability impact calc of 100% on nuclear war caused by water runoff. your impact should be geared towards outweighing the aff in the same world the aff lives in. big stick can only beat soft left if the aff majorly goofs it, or if you win a tech over truth debate - possible, but a lot of extra work. similarly if the aff is about preventing mass death, then your impact should shoot for something similar.
if you make me laugh, you instantly get at least a minimum of 28 speaker points.
I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.
I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.
I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.
Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.
If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue.
Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
Hi I am Kate and my pronouns are she/her
**For Eden Prairie LD: I have never judged LD before! I competed in policy for 4 years in high school and this is my second year coaching and judging policy. I will try my best to give you as valuable feedback as I can but be aware my background is in policy and k debate.
Debated for Rosemount 2017-2021
Sociology student at Macalester
Coach at Highland Park 2021-present
I will try my best not to do any work for you. In the words of Nathan Wodarz "I generally look at what I would need to do to vote for either team and choose the outcome that requires the least work on my part"
Think of your job as a debater is to first have fun, second learn a lot, and third, make my job as a judge easy by keeping the flow clean and do your best in your last rebuttal to write out my ballot for me.
Now what you are really here for: Yes read your k aff or neg but do the work to win your offense. As much as I love K debate it matters to me who did the better debating and won the tech level. I don't think I have too many positive or negative thoughts about other positions but if I find I do I'll try to keep that to myself and let the teams figure it out in the round.
I really want to see you have fun and learn as much as you can from every round :)
4 years debating in Wisconsin from 1999-2003.
Coaching @ Washington Technology Magnet School in Saint Paul since 2013.
First off - yes, you can tag team so long as it doesn't turn into a yelling fight.
Generally, I take points off for using too much speech time, not using all your time, being overly aggressive without warrant during CX, saying things that are racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
In the old days, I would have just called myself TABS (Tabula Rosa, or blank slate.) In general, I'm comfortable voting on most kinds of arguments, although I often find myself deciding many JV and V rounds on framework due to a lack of clash elsewhere in the debate.
My background is in Chemistry and Physics, so I have at best a debate level knowledge of much of the K literature. That being said, I'm very comfortable with the technical aspects of debate, so label your arguments well and explain yourself in your rebuttals and I should have a good idea about what is going on. That said, I'm very sensitive to punching down, so if you have a "funny" aff be careful that it is also respectful.
Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: email@example.com
Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.
Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.
Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.
I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.
As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...
Fine and necessary args in policy.
Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.
Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.
Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.
Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.
Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.
***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***
"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins
Hello! I'm Skye. I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.
I have experience reading, coaching, & judging both trad policy arguments and Ks.
I have now been coaching for close to 2 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN.
I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)
Top 3 Notes!
1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…
- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears
- please send out analytics if you are at all willing
- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech
- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow
- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.
- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.
If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.
2. When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.
3. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.
"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.
Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.
Clash debates, K on the neg: Unless otherwise proven, extinction will indeed outweigh. Sure, fiat is illusory, and scenario planning can be good, but again, what is the educational impact/value to those arguments? Framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there.
K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.
Ks, general:I will not just grant you ontology or your theory of power or what have you. You still have to...provide warrants for it... No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.
Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”
T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.
Plans/policy: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments, I earnestly attempt to keep my thoughts and assumptions based in the debate that happened, and I believe I am successful in that. Letting bias influence me is not good for anyone's education. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.
LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.
Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad
Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad
Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education
Fairness is a thing----------------------------x--Delgado 92
Try or die------------------------------------x-----What's the opposite of try or die
Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency
AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:
Debated four years on Kansas/National circuit in highschool. I debate freshman year at Emory. I coach for a local Kansas team--I've only judged at two tournaments on this topic. Fine with any rate of delivery, as long as you're clear. I'll flow what I can understand, if you're not clear on tag statements or arguments it won't make it onto my flow.
DA's--Fine with generic links/DA's-establish a proper link story and be aware of your argument. That will validate the context of the link and how much weight I give it.
CP's--Fine with PICs, Consult CPs, and Adv. CPs. Condo is a debate to be had, a dropped condo arg by the affirmative does not produce an automatic win for the negative. I have an extremely high threshold for voting on condo.
K's--Totally fine with the K. I'm most familiar with arguments pertaining to anti-blackness and queer theory. really I'm cool with any K and can follow it.
T--Always a debate to be had--the interp, violation, and voters should be made clear coming out of the 1NC. I'm fine with competing interps, but will follow the line by line/ flow. I have a high threshold for voting on T.
I'm fine with no plan text/performative affs.
Everyone be nice to each other, being rude will only result in a loss of percieved ethos and speaker points.
Feel free to ask my any questions about my experience/preferences in round.
I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will.
I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)
Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards.
have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)
You can call me alex, judge, or judge alex
im down with k affs you just better be good at responding to t cause i love t
I've been juding for a few years and i debated a bit before that (started judging in 2018)
Its okay to be nervous. debate especially when you just start debating can be really scary. Its okay take a deep breath. if that doesn't work talk to me we can ways pause the round for a minute or two for mental health.
Clarity comes before speed
Yes you can tag team but don't abuse it. (You can not tag team against a maverick )
Even if both teams are three headed monsters the third person who isnt in that debate CAN NOT help.
If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it
If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.
If you don't make it clear your going onto a new card by saying next it is very possible I'll miss your tag.
Make it clear where you on in the speech by sign posting i will probably flow it on the wrong flow which wont make your argument stronger.
Its totally fine to be assertive but don't be mean if you get mean I'll dock speaker points.
If i see you not flowing all of the speeches i will dock speaker points.
Don't ask me questions in round if it deals with the round wait until the debate is over and im giving my rfd.
Extending isnt re-reading the card its reading the author year then explaining the warrant in your own words
I don't flow cross x. BUT if you say something that goes aginst the side you supposed to be on i will write it down in the notes
Tell me if there is anything you don't want me to comment on like if you have a stutter. I dont wanna be bring that up and possibly just annoying you