Greetings! I am thrilled to be your judge, and look forward to seeing you soon!

About me: I debated for four years in most events—NSDA National Qualifier in Congress (4x), Public Forum (2x), Extemp, Big Questions, and Duo; second-most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2022; and four-time elimination round qualifier at NSDA Nationals. Since then, I have judged a lot of Speech and Debate, mainly in Wyoming.

My paradigm is simple: be yourself. This is your space! I will do my best to be objective and consider everything said in the round: framework, then voters/contentions, and any weighing of impacts underneath them. However, I’m not a robot. I will vote for the team that appeals to me the most. Debate is more than an exercise in technicalities—it is an appeal to human thought, logic, and values.

Three quick notes: First, have fun and smile! Debate is such an awesome experience, and I find myself enjoying rounds more when y’all are, too! Second, no off-time roadmaps. Usually these are unnecessarily long, for little reward. Third, presentation matters. Speed should not preclude clarity, and eye contact, rhetoric, and dynamism are instrumental in ensuring that I am convinced by your arguments.

Note about Congress (borrowed from Joshua Hansen): This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

I really enjoy judging, and I will always leave some written feedback for you. For any further questions, please email me at willaepli@princeton.edu.

Background:

Hey! My name is Jose Atilano, and I have done speech and debate throughout my high school years in Greybull, WY, and am currently doing it in college. In high school, I qualified for the National Tournament Junior and Senior Year in International Extemp and Original Oratory. Still, I have competed in Informative, Public Forum, and Congress during the regular season. 

I go in-depth on judging each event, so I would Control-F to find your event. 

ALL Debates:

Speed - I don't mind speed reading cases, and if anything, I'm a fan, but if it comes to the point where I don't understand what you're saying, you will lose speaker points.

Evidence - It's crucial that you cite the sources of studies. I prefer that you note the author's credentials and the year the studies were published. 

Voters - If you give these, you've become my favorite person. It makes judging easier and helps me keep track of the arguments dropped in the debate.

Spreading - DO NOT SPREAD!! Spreading takes away from the value of the debate, and it wastes my time, particularly in LD and PF. I'm more lenient with CX.

Crossfire - I've taken part and seen some pretty ugly crossfires. I understand that it's hard not to get heated during this part of the debate, but being unnecessarily aggressive is unbearable to your opponents and judges.

Arguments - I expect every single argument made to benefit your case and do no harm. I will NOT TOLERATE racist, homophobic, or degrading remarks against anyone. 

Time - I will be keeping track of time on my side. If you speak past your time limit, anything said after the time mark will not be considered.

(PF) PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

Make sure you can back up your arguments and tell me why I should vote for you! (FYI, This isn't policy)

(LD) LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:

Value and criterion must flow through the case for me to consider it thoroughly. Also, tell me why I should vote for you! 

(CX) POLICY DEBATE:

If you make an argument be ready to back it up, and tell me why I should vote for you!

(STUCO/CD) CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE: 

Delivery, analysis, arguments, and even chamber participation will bump you up in the rankings but don't belittle your fellow representatives/senators.

(BQ) BIG QUESTIONS DEBATE: 

If you make an argument be ready to back it up, and tell me why I should vote for you!

ALL Interps:

Relevance - I rank those who interpret an important message higher than those who just interpret a piece. Although, I tend to bend this rule quite often.

Volume - please, please make sure you're loud enough for me to hear throughout the performance. But also, remember that screaming or yelling should not be the piece's highlight. 

Pausing - I firmly believe that pausing at the correct times enhances your speech's emotions, whether to break my heart or for comical relief. But don't have pauses run too long as it makes everyone uncomfortable.

Scripts - Using scripts will ensure a lower ranking as all interps are supposed to be memorized. except for POI and Poetry

(DI) DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION: 

I want your piece to pull at my heartstrings and see you connect with your performance. Interpret don't mimic.

(HI) HUMOROUS INTERPRETATION:

I want to have a good laugh, but I also want to see you connect with your piece. Interpret don't mimic

(DUO) DUO INTERPRETATION:

Partner chemistry enhances your performance drastically. But also timing with the movement is essential.

(POI) PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION:

Using your binder is important, but the overall performance and how your POI is put together are just as important.

ALL Platforms:

Structure - I can't stress this enough. Structure in all platform events is extremely important! Not only does it enhance the speech, but it also helps me understand your topics.

Volume - Make sure you're loud enough for me to hear you. 

Politics - Mentioning politics in your speech can be controversial, but not to me. Just as long as you use it to make a point in an effective manner

Examples - Sometimes, it's hard for me to understand what you're trying to present. If you're presenting hard-hitting information, ensure you provide examples to help me understand the material you're giving me. 

Triangle - Doing your triangle helps me track what point you're on. It also cleans up the overall presentation. If you're doing the triangle, DO NOT WANDER.

Scripts - Using scripts will ensure a lower ranking as all platform events are supposed to be memorized.

Roadmap - Give me one! It helps me track your speech and argument, but it also gives me a heads up on what to expect. (the more creative, the better)

(IX/DX) INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC EXTEMP:

Don't be afraid to take a political stance. I won't rank you low or high whether you take a democratic or republican view. However, I'm ranking you based on whether you Cite your sources (ex. NPR 2022), present from memory, validate your answer/arguments, delivery, and the overall value of the speech. 

(INFO) INFORMATIVE SPEAKING:

It's effortless to lose the judges' attention, so keep me entertained while informing me. I want to be intrigued by your research and not be overwhelmed. While visual aids enhance a presentation, they shouldn't be the focus of your speech. It should also be strictly informative. IT'S NOT AN ORATORY

(OO) ORIGINAL ORATORY: 

I want to be persuaded and exposed to another point of view when listening to a speech. Ensure you provide examples or backup your statements, whether that is statistics, stories, or even your own experiences. Also, keep in mind that oratory is NOT AN INFORMATIVE.

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me via email

• jose.rosalesatilano@gmail.com

Happy Competing & Good Luck, 

Jose Atilano

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Interpretation events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate events paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

You need to support assertions with analysis and evidence to make them into persuasive arguments. You need to listen to previous speakers in order to provide direct clash and expansion and to avoid mere repetition. You need to speak articulately and succinctly. Your speed needs to not preclude clarity.

Competed for four years for Jackson Hole, Wyoming—NSDA national qualifier in Public Forum (2x), Congressional Debate (3x), Big Questions, and Duet Interpretation; most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2021; TOC National Champion Presiding Officer in 2021.

I won't vote you down for speed, but if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it. The quality of your speaking and presentation matters. Please weigh and contextualize your arguments.

For any questions regarding my paradigm or an RFD, I can be reached at joshuahansen@college.harvard.edu.

————————————

For Congressional Debate:

This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

————————————

For the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series:

I was a 2020 National Finalist, competed at and made out-rounds in four regional tournaments, and have judged multiple final rounds at regionals since graduating. I take the GCDS prescribed paradigm seriously—be polite, be presidential, focus on the big picture, and don’t treat it like a normal NSDA debate event.

Debates

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion clash and flow through the case. Tell me why your arguments win the round and the other side loses.

Public Forum

Make logical arguments with cited evidence and tell me why you win and the other side loses.

Congress

All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence.

Interps

Humor/Drama/Duo

Interpretation of your pieces doesn't mean copying the original. Give me insight into why this piece spoke to you.

Poetry

I like to understand what the piece(s) mean to you, so show me in your interpretation.

Oratory

Make me believe what you are saying.

Informative

Give me the information in a way that makes me want to learn more.

Extemp

Organization of your thoughts is important, as well as citing your sources (which should not be made up).

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

I've been judging for several years. I was on my high school speech team about a hundred years ago in Sheridan. (For the record, I don't know any teachers or students from there.)

I judged Congress at the District tournament in Worland several years ago and have been judging it ever since. I also judge individual events. My favorites are POI and Extemp, and I also like Oratory. I think it's very interesting to hear what high school students are thinking about.

As far as judging, a couple of things I look for:

1. Clear speaking that's not super fast (why I don't judge CX);

2. Reasoned, logical arguments (I know that seems like a redundancy but unfortunately it's not always so) that are based on facts and evidence;

3. Evidence;

4. More evidence.

Seriously, just because you -- or a paid talking head -- said it, does not make it true.

In all events, I'm looking for critical and NEW or novel thinking. Backed by, yes that word again, evidence.

>>> Short version:

Ex-Policy tab flow judge without strong technical background; tries not to judge PF and LD like they are Policy.

>>> Way too long version:

I am an ex-Policy debater, but from a time and place when Policy was less technical than it is today. Back then, it kind of resembled what we would see today in a faster, more evidence-heavy PF round. Speed had just started to get popular and argumentation was shifting away from focusing on stock issues and more toward focus on advantages/disadvantages. Although CPs, Ts and Ks were around, they were not well-liked by most judges and so most rounds would center around on-case and DAs since those were the arguments you could win on.

Policy:

As a Policy judge I consider myself tech>truth and tabula rasa. These are the judges I most enjoyed debating in front of, so this is the type of judge I am by default. That said, I do kind of groan when I have to listen to really bad generic DAs, really bad generic CPs, outlandish theory, Ks that even you don't understand at all, and throwaway Ts. But I understand it's all part of the Policy game to some extent, and I'll vote on this stuff (in Policy only). But I am happier if I can vote on good arguments instead of tricks or one tiny dropped part of a spread. I don't have a strong background in Ks, so if you are going to run one you will need to explain it for the layman and it will need to make sense to a layman-- frankly some Ks I cannot even flow without some added exposition because I have not a single solitary clue what the words being said mean as they are read off the page. You can read the whole entire K and my K flow sheet at the end will just say "buddy without Oregons ??? (scooby doo huh noise) ???". Although there are arguments that I personally like more or less, in general I will vote on anything that you can explain, win, and weigh. I've tried to learn the parts of "modern Policy" that are new to me, but it still is probably wise for very proficient Policy debaters to treat me as flay and slow down and explain the more technical args a bit. I don't give speed warnings; I expect you to know how fast you can go and remain understandable, and find that 99% of debaters do and it's usually not a problem. Although I can usually keep up with speed just fine in the "straightaways", I have noticed that in very fast rounds I sometimes lose the first part of a card or argument right after switching args. Because of this, if really speedy speedsters want to slow down just a bit during/after the signpost, take a quick breath, and give me a half second to find the right place on my flow, that would be great and prevent me from missing the first part of your next argument.

PF and LD:

In PF and LD, truth>tech.

I like all kinds of PF, both the slower more persuasive classic PF and the faster more evidence-heavy line-by-line PF. When rounds have a slower team against a faster team, I find that kind of tricky to judge. Obviously if I judged it like Policy, the faster team would almost always win. Because I like both styles and think they are both valid ways to do PF, generally this is how I judge PF so that slow teams can compete against fast teams: I flow the round using a Policy-style column flow, but I am much, much, much less strict about extensions and drops. I think a good argument made in PF can stand on its own without necessarily requiring an extension in every speech. And I will do some work on the flow if there are obvious ways that arguments interact, basically taking short leaps if I believe they are obvious and within the realm of how a lay judge would evaluate the round. I know it really stinks when judges put pieces together too much and you lose to arguments that your opponent did not even really make, so I try not to do that, but in general I believe PF should be judged by thinking humans and so your arguments should take into account the fact that the judge is able to think and reason. Basically in PF, I am an unbiased but normal, average, thinking lay human person who is open to being persuaded by the overarching story of the round. Each thing that gets said in the round is free to bounce around in my head and interact with each other thing, without needing to be told explicitly to be cross-applied or extended or whatever, it's all just a big soup of argumentation. Although I flow, I don't judge strictly off the flow, it is more of a personal notekeeping system than a gameboard. This is in contrast to Policy, where I am more of a strict argument-evaluating computer and the flow is the gameboard on which the round is won or lost. It seems to me like research and case writing are the critical parts of PF; it is usually very obvious which teams have spent time digging deeply into the evidence, reading beyond the highlights, and gaining a deep and nuanced understanding of the empirical facts; and those teams usually debate much better and are more persuasive regardless if they choose a faster or slower style.

I had no exposure to LD until I started coaching, but have really grown to like it. Basically all LD that I see in Wyoming is trad though, so if you are a competitor reading this at Nationals and you do progressive LD, it will essentially be my first time seeing that. My default way to judge LD is to treat the Value and Criterion like a framework or weighing mechanism. Because of this, it is very important to me that you don't ignore the value clash and that you tie your arguments back to the V/VC. The winning V/VC becomes the yardstick by which I measure the rest of what happens in the round and has a huge effect on what arguments end up mattering in the decision. If you ignore the V/VC, you will probably lose. Sometimes the V/VC debate is very close and hard to call, so it may be strategic to try to tie your args to both V/VCs just in case you end up losing the V/VC part of the flow ("even if x, y...")

General:

Generally speaking, a type of speech that I usually find persuasive and effective looks like this:
- Goes straight down the flow and explains why you win each point of clash, actually interacting with the point and not just reiterating what you previously said
- Extends the parts of the flow that had no clash (dropped stuff) that you still think important
- Does an overarching impact analysis, weighing, tying arguments back to framework or value. Explains broadly why winning the points you just discussed means that you win the round as a whole.
Definitely there is no one effective speech structure, this is just the type of speech that often leaves me thinking "dang, nice speech".

Speeches that I find not very persuasive do things like:
- Try to extend a point from your last speech but don't interact with the clash on that point. You ask me to extend something you said earlier in the round but do not interact at all with how your opponent answered that point. These types of "non-interacting extensions" are kind of not even flowable in my book. I really need at least one sentence of analysis explaining how your extension is able to hold, given the clash in the round on the point in question. Just saying "extend x" and no further explanation is not good enough when there is ANY clash on the point. When there's no clash, by all means "extend x" and move on.
- Similarly, trying to cross-apply without explaining how the point cross-applies. Just saying "cross-apply x" and moving on is not going to cut it unless it is extremely obvious how the cross-apply works. In general I would like to see at least one sentence of analysis explaining how the cross-apply cross-applies.
- Really vague impact analysis. I had in my paradigm last year that I liked weighing (which I do), and often people seemed to just throw in short vague debate camp statements like "outweigh on magnitude", "outweigh on probability". While that's better than nothing for sure, I would really love to see some more thoughtful analysis of how the impacts in the round stack up against each other and how they interact with any framework or value in the round.
- Only going line-by-line with zero overall analysis of the round. Even in Policy, I do like to see at least a little bit of overall summary beyond the line-by-line.

I don't really care that much about roadmaps. I'd prefer them off-time if you are going to do them just so they don't waste useful speech time. I do like signposting though especially in fast rounds.

I really prefer if everyone in the round is respectful to each other. I know it's debate and things can get heated, but let's keep it as civil as possible.

Hey!

My name is Agezeh Victor (He/Him). I am a student at the University of ilorin, Nigeria. I am a debater with judging and speaking skills in British Parliamentary debating style (BP), World school Debating Championship (WSDC), Public Forum (PF) and Asian Parliamentary (AP)

Conflict: None

Email: agezehvictor2@gmail.com

As a judge, I appreciate when speakers engages the burden of an argument and also attack the argument as it relates to the debate, speaking in a manner that allows your point be understood and not missed.

Also, I expect every individual with debating interest to read the judging and speaking manual so as to know the rules and also to know what is expected of them in each motion.

Furthermore, speaking isn't just about the eloquence of the speech but also about point engagement and burden fulfilment.

Time keeping is very crucial and everyone should keep to time.

Since it an online tournament, ensure to mute you mic when it not your turn to speak and un-mute when it is yours, do not interrupt others when they speak.

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

Please put me on the email chain: jlfwillson@gmail.com

Updated 1/9/2024

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a 2nd year policy debater at the University of Wyoming and debate coach for Hot Springs County High School. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance.

LD

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for three years in high school. I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted. Debate is a space for students to do what they want, so "this isn't policy debate" isn't a real argument. Explain why what they have done is bad for LD, don't just assert that is. This is probably best done on the framework level of the debate, have a value that prioritizes theory over pragmatism and convince me that their focus on consequences is bad.

PF

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Case

Teams should have better case debates around a few, well-developed args in the 2NR. I like to see a bunch of stuff to test the AFF early and then boil down to one or two positions per sheet that have a really convincing story. Go in-depth and use examples and applications to show why it mitigates the solvency of the AFF and makes the DA/Alt more threatening. Teams go for too much in the 2NR/2AR, make the debate small and powerful.

Ks vs. Policy AFF

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts and how it solves the links. Make sure link packages are specific to the AFF and explain the links that were made in the round. Overviews are cool because they provide an opportunity to engage with the impacts of the AFF and solvency to create a presumption push.

FW vs. K AFF

FW is a T argument at its core, so you should provide me with impacts for why their model of debate is bad for topic engagement. I will evaluate both fairness and clash as impacts, although I tend to be more persuaded by clash and skills. TVAs help a lot, give me reasons it accesses their lit base and solves your offense. I will vote on AFF impact turns, but I like to see a well developed counter-interp. This should function like a counterplan/alt that solves the AFF and NEG offense. Debating about debate is one of the most fun parts about this activity, so enjoy your opportunity to have a meta discussion about the activity you are participating in!

T

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated. Explain why grounds and limits are important to the debate i.e. why they are internal links to your larger impacts. 2NRs should directly compare models of debate, what does debate look like under their interpretation, what's the case list, is there a TVA? These are all very important questions to answer.