I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

I'm an assistant debate coach and competed in debate in all 4 years of high school, so I can keep up with complex arguments, as long as you bring them back to real world implications & keep your speeches organized.

A winning team will tell me why their side/case makes the world a better place. I like when teams include weighing mechanisms in their cases, and when they prove why theirs is a more important weighing mechanism and/or how they win on both their weighing mechanism & their opponent's.

I'm not a huge fan of off-time roadmaps - all I need is a basic structure of your speech, and I prefer if you give that within your time. I try not to be incredibly picky about small things, but using politically correct & respectful terms is very important to me.

I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to what you all have prepared!!

I have experience on every major circuit in the country in various events. I specialized in extemp, congress, and world schools, but I have experience in and an understanding of every event.

Speech and Debate are the antithesis of complacency, and I expect competitors to represent that by challenging and changing content and arguments throughout the year. Do not get comfortable with the normal. Challenge and change the status quo, and that starts with creativity.

TLDR: Tech>Truth but I have a much lower threshold for blatantly wrong statements.

If you have any questions or advice, simply ask me after the round or email me here: achivakula@gmail.com

LD/CX: I am largely tech over argument, excluding certain situations. I am not opposed to any kritiques or technical arguments, but I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. I am a strong believer that complicated or convoluted arguments that are conveyed poorly are far worse than a simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly. I'm fairly well-read on philosophy, but if you are going to attempt arguments of that vein, you best be prepared to utilize that argument in a rational and pragmatic way.

PF: I want to hear strategic and planned responses that actually signpost where and what the judge and opponents need to pay attention to. Way too many PF rounds become messy, and both sides misconstruing arguments in good or bad faith. If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.

Congress: I have spent most of my debate career in congress and extemp, so I know what fluff is and what is real. I do NOT take kindly to excessive theatrics, a lack of clash, and a lack of real content. I also know when your speech is nothing but "rhetoric" versus actual points. I need to see proactive and unique points, especially creativity and risks. As for the PO, I need to see you stand out. All PO's are not created equal, and if you can have a hold over your chamber while being a charming or dynamic competitor, I will thank you and vote you highly. Take risks, don't let this event homogenize into people doing the same thing over and over again.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Performance and presentation matter, and they absolutely will reflect positively on your ranking. However, I see extemp as a mix between speaking and debate. I want to see the content, the link chain, the impact, and the warrants. Tell me why your topic matters, its effects past the direct "what the eye can see", and compare it. Use the skills of persuasion and informing and give me an argument. If you can do that and communicate your point effectively, you are absolutely going to rank highly with me.

World Schools: I absolutely give merit to the content and the arguments here. However, this event gives the opportunity to branch out and address arguments from a much more holistic and broader perspective. Take control of that opportunity. I give a lot of leeway here, but in the end this is world schools. All arguments are fair game for me.

Interp/OO/Info: I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the event, and view these events as more so to cater to your preferences than mine. Show me what you got!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

I competed in Lincoln Douglas throughout college. I look for evidence-backed arguments and competitors should ensure they engage in their fellow competitors' arguments and set precedence for any basis of an affirmative argument. Negatives should debate based on that precedence.

In addition to well-evidenced arguments, I want to hear why your argument matters and outweighs what has already been said and should be clearly articulated.

Finally, I look for a professionalism and decorum, where each debater stands on the strength of their arguments, and not simply relying on their speaking abilities.

Please keep the debate conversational and limit spreading. Also, please limit simply reading from notes; Im looking for the most adept speakers with a great command of the framework; persuading me that their value was superior and best illustrated their argument.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I am new to judging, but I did debate all 4 years of high school. I am not familiar with any of the current topics, so please explain as much as necessary for me to understand all of your arguments.

Speed is fine as long as I can understand everything that you say. Even if I have your case, I don't want to have to read to understand all of your arguments, so keep it clear and understandable. You can run as many arguments as you want, as long as you can weigh them at the end of the round.

In general, I will prefer tech over truth. As said, I am not knowledgeable on the topics, so I will believe what you tell me unless it is refuted by the other team. If you drop arguments anywhere in the debate, I won't consider them as voters. Please extend all of the arguments that you think are important in each speech, even if they were unrefuted (and tell me that it wasn't refuted).

On evidence, I won't ask to see anything unless you call it out in-round. Make sure to tell me which piece of evidence to ask for so I can read it at the end.

Policy:

I am comfortable with most arguments except for K's. You can run a K, but you will need to do a LOT of explaining if you want me to really understand it and be able to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run pretty much any arguments which are allowed in the circuit.

LD:

Honestly, I don't understand values and criterions, so you'll need to do a lot of explaining for me to understand how to vote on it. Otherwise, you can run any arguments similar to policy.

PF:

I am most comfortable with PF out of all the forms of debate. I competed at the state and national level for two years, and came in third place at the Idaho State Debate tournament 2021. You can run pretty much any arguments here, as long as I can understand what you're saying. If you don't state a framework I'll assume that you are doing a cost benefit analysis. I don't like definitions in the beginning, just explain terms to me along the way. I am okay with paraphrasing evidence here, but be sure to represent the evidence correctly.

FYI, there are three different Tabroom accounts for Michelle Hamann. They are all me. This is the current one, so look here for paradigms, but if you want the whole history of my judging you might want to look at the other ones as well.

LD: I have been judging debate longer than you have been alive. I am pretty old-school in my approaches. I will accept more progressive styles, but the focus always needs to be on the resolution and why we should or should not enact it. I'm not really interested in a meta-debate about debate, and if you bring up those arguments I'm probably going to be looking for ways for you to lose.

I flow on paper, and the flow is where I look to make my decision. If you want me to consider an argument you need to give in a clear and organized enough manner that I can get it onto the flow. If you're speaking at 300 words per minute, I'm probably not going to get it onto the flow. If you don't signpost, you're at my mercy on where I put it on the flow.

I care about warrant a LOT. Evidence is good, but if you don't tell me why it matters, it's not going to matter much in my mind.

Quality of arguments will always beat quantity. Just because your opponent drops your contention 10 subpoint Q doesn't mean you win. (Doubly so because a case that has that many contentions probably argued none of them well.)

Be respectful. You can win--and win handily--while respecting your opponent, even if he/she is overmatched.

PuFo: I am a reasonably educated American voter who is relatively well versed in current events. Convince me. I will not flow and do not care about dropped subpoints and technicalities. I will listen to what you say and how you say it, and pick the team that offers the more convincing arguments.

Congressional Debate: How well are you contributing to positive, productive debate? That's the question that underlies every aspect of my judging in Congress.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

I have coached LD since the last century. While I am capable of change, I do hold fast to a few philosophies that you will want to know about if I'm your judge.

First, do go ahead and have a value and a criterion for the debate. Hit those arguments (on your own and theirs) hard: I will look for a weighing mechanism that leads me to some large good.

Second, QUALITY OF ARGUMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY. Just because your opponent drops your Contention 5 Subpoint F doesn't mean that you've automatically won anything worth winning (least of all the whole debate), because if you have a Contention 5 Subpoint F, none of your arguments are probably at all developed or worthwhile. Doing claim-data-warrant well requires some time, and I'd rather have a few arguments developed beautifully than a bunch of arguments that are underdeveloped.

Kritiks: not a fan, but willing to listen. I tend to view them as an excuse not to debate the resolution, so go with caution, but if you're bold enough to go past this warning and try, I'll listen. You might not want to put all of your eggs in this basket if I'm your judge.

Speed: Ick. I'd like to hear debaters demonstrate communication skills that will be valuable outside of debate rounds, and speed is not that. I find it offensive to me as an English teacher.

I do distinguish between offensive speed and defensive speed. That is to say that if you're just spewing out a billion arguments in hopes that one or two will stick, I will actually resent what you're doing with my time and this event I love. But if you need to speed up a little (for example in the 1AR) to hit some things, I can live with that. Nonetheless, if I can't understand you, I can't flow, and if I don't flow it, you didn't say it.

To put it another way (and not just with speed): it is not my job to understand you. It is your job to be understandable.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something: feel free to ask me in the round if anything is missing here.




PUBLIC FORUM:

I'm old enough that I remember when Public Forum was founded (did you know it was originally called Controversy? Then Ted Turner Debate?). Originally, it was founded as a lay judge debate: something that your smart uncle who has never seen a debate round could judge intelligently. Solid argumentation, thoughtful evidence, but no "card wars" and no debate-head jargon. The idea was that LD was too specialized, too jargony, too aimed at a tiny debate-head population rather than to the general public.

While I love LD (still), I hold to this original purpose for Public Forum Debate. I will listen to anything, but let's stay focused on the topic at hand. I won't flow (though I do take notes to refer to for my RFD).

In other words, when judging Public Forum, I take off my debate-coach hat and put on my citizen hat. Treat me like a citizen hasn't decided on an issue who shows up to hear you debate that issue. When I watch a political debate on TV--let's pretend for a second like these are more than shouting matches--I don't flow those, nor do I want to hear epistemological jargon. I just listen for the best evidence, logic, and (yes) coherent presentation. Wow me with those and you'll be on my good side.

I did Speech and Debate throughout Highschool with a heavy focus on Public Forum Debate. I am familiar with most events and I can keep up with debate-specific concepts.

Debate wise:

I judge mainly from the flow, so I am looking for direct clash and weighted impacts.

Be clear, sign-post; tell me where we are on the flow and where we are going.

I am a lover of off-time roadmaps but if you read more than your taglines, I will start your time.

Some speed is fine, but as I said, be clear. If I cannot understand you, it will not be on my flow and therefore will not be considered in my decision. Don't spread in PoFo.

I'll probably ask for cards in round, so be ready to share those with me.

Don't be mean. Any sign of disrespect to anyone in round will be marked against you.

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.

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: Don't spread much and speak at a resonable speed please. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isn't sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Don't do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

All,

My name is John Lee

Looking for organization skill, and how each argument is backed up by facts not general assumptions.

Don't confuse me with irrelevant statements - make a point!

Looking forward to a great debate!

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I competed in Public Forum in High School at Rowland Hall (UT), and did BP in College at Lewis & Clark. I currently coach for Catlin Gabel (OR).

If you plan to share docs, please make an email chain titled "Round [X] Aff-[Team A] Neg-[Team B]". My email is mulfordc@catlin.edu

my main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

-weigh arguments in the round. Make your case the easiest path for the ballot.

-collapse collapse collapse. please. you only hurt yourself by trying to go for every word said in the round.

-just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response.

-please, for the love of god, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

how I determine speaker points:

-not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

-doing weighing, collapsing and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks

Other

-theory (for me) in pf is fine. you should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair, and not to fill up time or show me that you did ld/policy. if you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

-speed-if I can’t understand you, ill say clear.

-I often vote for teams with fewer, well reasoned and weighed arguments than ones which dump arguments on me. You also risk that I will miss arguments.

My background is varied. I've worked in IT and I currently work as a software developer. In college, I studied psychology and political science.

Most of the points below apply for both speech and debate.

- For me, theory supported by evidence is always preferred to theory alone. If a theory does not appear to be based on a set of premises that justify the conclusion, I'll likely dismiss it, even if evidence which you provide supports part of the overall claim--the theory must first be logically sound.

- I'm a lateral thinker, so non-linear argumentation and storytelling is fine by me.

- For debate in particular, one thing I'll be looking for is some form of thesis statement that encompasses your argument. It would be best to lead with this statement, or I may misidentify the thesis. This is different from a roadmap. Whereas the roadmap acts as an outline for your speech, a thesis statement briefly summarizes the core or your argument.

- When reviewing research, I usually ask myself the following questions, so it will only help if these points are included when you cite your research:

1. "Did the research use proper sample size, and is the sampling method appropriate for the type of research?"

2. "Was the research replicated, producing the same results, or was it otherwise peer-reviewed?"

3. "Does the research prove cause, or is it simply demonstrating correlation?" This is the most important aspect of research, in my opinion.

- If I can see that the research neglected to account for confounding variables then the research is less meaningful to me.

- As far as delivery goes, I like to see good use of inflection to emphasize important points, but I am much more concerned with the content of your arguments.

- I find that ethos and logos arguments are typically more persuasive than pathos.

I use any pronouns. If you didn't know, that does not mean you can just refer to me as "she/her" exclusively unless you have my explicit permission.

Speech

Please allow me to finish writing feedback, if applicable, then give me your speech title, if applicable, and signal to me when you're ready to start. I will start time on your first word. Otherwise, relax and be respectful! Trigger warnings and content warnings are always appreciated. If you don't have one and your piece covers some triggering content, I will be very very sad—along with other emotions.

General Debate

As a former competitor, I've been out of this for like a good eight months. With that in mind, no I'm not comfortable with extreme speed. You can speak fast, like you're giddy and you have something you want to share but you don't feel like you have time, but you can't spread. If you're confused about my comfort level with your speed, please feel free to ask me about specifics.

Please signpost, give taglines, and impact everything out. Arguments need to be accessible. Anecdotal evidence is great but your argument shouldn't hinge on it. And please be respectful to each other! I'm not so sure about intervening but I will vote you down if you display any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. JUDGES ARE STUPID. I'm not going to be "tabula rasa" because I know that I will definitely have biases, beliefs, and all but I will judge purely by the flow (aka I will judge by the flow by default but I would prefer some spicy voters and impact calculus instead). That does not mean I'm a tech judge (iykyk).

If you like using jargon, I'm okay with it. Just don't use it in a definitively wrong way because we will have different interpretations. And please be EXPLICIT (indicating a counterplan is permable doesn't equate to you perming the counterplan).

PLEASE DON'T THANK ME IN YOUR SPEECH, I REALLY DON'T NEED IT. IT'S REPETITIVE AND WASTES YOUR TIME.

Speaker points are arbitrary and I shouldn't be the judge of your speaking style because it's your style. Thus, if nothing bad happens, 30 speaks for everyone if you signpost. 27 if you don't signpost.

Parli

I expect regional norms to be upheld. I can judge parli from a fact, value, and policy perspective. I prefer policy perspective because that is really easy to impact out (e.g. if it's a value resolution, what are the real world consequences? There are natural policy consequences to everything). I like formal structure (plans, cps, advantages, disadvantages, presses, etc). I'm okay with theory but it gets kind of boring after the first two seconds. If possible, try to operate without it unless there's an egregious mistake that really affects the debate and cannot be solved by a simple correction. Ask for any specifics.

Policy resolutions

Please have a plan on aff, or at least a specific approach. If you're going to do some performative perming, I will not let you drop it. A perm is a perm and you will have to follow through with it. Or you could run theory and explain why.

PF

I won't flow cross examination, so if something comes up, please repeat it in your speech and tell me where to put it on my flow. Ask for any specifics.

Policy

No spreading. Even if you send a speech doc, no spreading. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist. If you run theory, that's okay. Just don't waste everyone's time. Ask for any specifics.

LD

No spreading. Even if you send a speech doc, no spreading. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist. And if I can't understand you, how could I possibly vote for you? I prefer traditional LD over progressive LD. I won't flow cross examination, so if something comes up, please repeat it in your speech and tell me where to put it on my flow. Ask for any specifics.

• I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help.

• I request you to keep your own time.
  

• Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

• Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

• I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

• Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

If you would like to share your cards, please email me at sreerao at hotmail dot com

I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)

If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.

I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.

Important things to keep in mind in every round.
1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.

2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!

That leads me to...

3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.

I am currently a college student, having graduated from Cleveland HS in 2022. I have experience competing in/learning parliamentary, policy and public forum debate, but not LD. For speech, I am most familiar with impromptu, informative, poetry, prose, and less familiar with interp events and their structure.

In addition to going off of the various event criteria, I believe it is most important to consider the original content/ideas itself as well as the overall effectiveness of someone's communication. By ideas and content, I mean the speech/case prepared by the presenter itself. How well are the ideas put together? Does the piece make sense with the introduction/conclusion?

Effective communication can look a variety of ways, but it is most important to me that the presenter be clear in what they are saying. Slower speakers or faster speakers, neither will bother me, as long as the presenter ensures that the judge/audience can follow along with what is being said. In terms of rate of speaking, I can genuinely understand all speaking rates except crazy debate "spreading." So if you spread, make sure to slow down when it comes to points you want to emphasize. If the judge or the audience doesn't understand what is happening, you simply aren't effectively presenting.

I believe it is impossible for someone to be unbiased. I will strive to evaluate rounds solely on the two factors I listed above, that being said there are some things that will absolutely affect how I perceive a round or competitor:
1. Conduct. Be polite to the other competitors in the room, the audience if there is one, the judge. Treat everyone with respect, especially during a round.
2. Xenophobia and bigotry of any kind. Do not act in a way that is harmful to me or your fellow competitors. If you are not a member of the impacted community, do not say the slur even if it is in the piece you are choosing to read. I would rank someone down just based on that. That being said, do not expect to be able to weaponize issues of racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc to be able to win a debate, it's not a "get out of good argumentation" free card. You can't just say, "x argument is racist, should not be considered," explain why it perpetuates this. Do not assume I will fill in the blanks for you.
3. Provide adequate content/trigger warnings for topics that could need them.

At the end of the day, speech and debate should be about learning and communicating ideas over winning. I will consider anything likely as long as it is delivered in a way that I can understand, and isn't based in bigotry.

About Me: I have been engaged with speech and debate since 1993. I competed in policy/standard debate, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congress. I now find myself as a parent, coach, and judge. I hold speech and debate as one of the most important activities youth participate in. I do not separate speech from debate, and this is important if you want to win my ballot. Debate, to me, is an exercise in logic and rhetoric. With that, here are the items I am looking for.

1. For value debates (e.g., LD, Oregon parli sometimes, most resolutions in congress, etc.) – I am more of a traditionist: to me a value debate is more about a clash of philosophical concepts and ways to look at the world. I do not like seeing policy in an LD debate or in value-based parli resolutions. I want to hear the why before we move to the how.

2. I like to see a solid framework. I want to hear clearly stated values. Tell me how I, as a judge, should weigh the round and why it matters. Definitions can make/break a round for me. If there is clash on a definition, I will track it, but I don’t want the whole round to be a definitions debate. That said, I am not a fan of esoteric mid-19th century definitions that totally change the entire meaning of a term. I am willing to entertain Ts here, but they best be good.

a. Public Forum – for Oregon tournaments, please refer to the OSAA handbook 13.2.8. Plans or counterplans are not permitted in this debate format. Do not present them.

b. Oregon Parli – you are allowed to use a dictionary. It is the one thing you are allowed to use, so please – USE IT!

3. The contentions need to flow through the framework and to the value. If the impact of a contention is massive, but it is never linked back to the framework and value, I will struggle to see how it fits into the winning criterion or weighing mechanism.

4. Value criterion and weighing mechanisms should allow either side to win the round. I will most likely not award a VC/WM that I determine to be abusive, but I need to hear clash on it. If the opponent accepts a blatantly abusive VC, then that is what I will use.

5. Please don't be lazy with how you use values or VC/WM.

6. Impact is really important. I want to hear you link the impact back to the value and how it adds weight.

7. Voters – this is where you need to finish the deal with me. Tell me why you won, walk me through it, and give it to me in simple terms. This is where you bring it all back and explain to my how the case provides the most weight to the value – you have to sell it.

8. I am flowing the round, and I will use the flow for aiding me in determining who won the round. That said, I like a round where I don’t have to flow. Give me a clear path/roadmap (no off-time roadmaps however), signpost as you move along, and don’t bounce all over the place. If I am having a hard time following your case/speech odds are my flow won’t match yours, and your flow notes aren’t going to be used to determine who won the round.

a. In public forum rounds, I shouldn’t have to flow. The format was designed to allow the average adult to walk on into the room, know nothing about debate, and be able to decide who won the round.

b. If an argument is dropped and properly identified as being dropped then in almost all circumstances that contention will flow to the opponent.

c. Rhetoric is often broken down into logos, pathos, and ethos. I want to be persuaded by the winning side, so keep in mind that I will be looking across the three. If a competitor is all evidence with little explanation or connection with the audience, then competitor will have a hard time persuading me. If it is all emotion without logic then it won’t go well. All the confidence in the world shouldn’t be the reason that a case wins.

d. Do not use logical fallacies. I will note on my flow when one is used, and if the opponent is able to identify the fallacy in a clear and concise way, the argument will most likely go to the opponent. Granted – if you call out your opponent for using a fallacy and you either are wrong or use the fallacy-fallacy, that won’t bode well.

10. I have yet to hear a competitor spread that is able to deliver on pathos or ethos. If I am handed a case where I may read along since the speaking will be screeching along at Mach 10, then I question the live nature of the event.

a. Note: yes, I can keep up with spreading and read along, but I should not have to. Again – I expect quality over quantity.

11. In most instances I am leery of Ts and Ks. May you use them with me? Yes, but they need to setup correctly and they ought to be relevant. I also take them seriously, so if you are arguing that your opponent is being abusive here and now, you have my attention. If the argument and/or accusation is generic and used simply as a tool to get a win, odds are you just lost the argument and potentially the round. Be careful with what you are saying – words matter in the real world.

12. I am not a tabula rasa judge. There is some common knowledge. Not everything leads to nuclear war (sorry, I just have a hard time with most, not all, nuclear war arguments). Please don’t ask me to suspend belief.

13. Be nice, and while this may seem obvious it isn’t always (note – I find that most debaters are very nice).

14. Avoid debate jargon. I don’t want to hear about how the aff dropped the negs NC1 during the 1AR, it doesn’t flow, blah blah blah. Go back to my points on rhetoric. Walk a non-S&D person through it.

Hello everyone,

My name is Charlotte Thomas. 2023-24 is my second year judging Speech and Debate, and I am very glad to be supporting all the students who compete! In my working life, I am a psychotherapist, which means that I am skilled at tracking communication and intention. I will always work to remain objective in my assessments and comments. I will also enter the judging space with a fresh, open mindset.

In debate rounds, I am looking for clear and concise arguments which I am able to track. I also place high value on respectful behavior before, during, and after the rounds. I love it when I am offered a roadmap of where your debate is headed.

Thank you, and good luck!

When I was a competitor I competed in Oregon Parliamentary. I like arguments about the framework. If you provide a weighing mechanism (or value criterion) that is different from your opponents I want to see why I should choose yours over theirs, the same goes for definitions. I like to see any arguments brought up in the round related back to the weighing mechanism. I'm mostly looking for a topical debate. If you can show that your K is truly a priori to the debate, I'll buy a K. Procedurally, I like politeness. In Parli I like questions, I think they improve the quality of the debate; just a trend, rounds that had lots of questions tended to have better clash. I was a philosophy student for a while, so I love a good philosophical underpinning to an argument. If you have any questions for me feel free to ask at the start of a round. 

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School and am also assistant debate coach for Sam Barlow High School, both in the Portland, OR area. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events. For Sam Barlow, I specifically coach their WSD team.

I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but maybe more k heavy - both on the aff and neg. I judge on the tech and flow of the debate and will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter (I have seen it happen, don't be that person, I will do anything from vote you down and tank your speaks to potentially, depending on the round, report you to tab). Have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be happy hearing a policy aff and a DA / CP / T debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Speed - I am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would, for your sake. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top percentiles of speed, you're probably fine.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're on the link level or the alternative or the perm debate.

Pet Peeves:

1. Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
2. Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
3. Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

As a parent judge, I like to see your speeches being well-structured, with good logic and strong evidence to support your opinions. Your performance, such as your posture and tones will also be considered. Keep up your good work.