Debate:

I am looking for style: how well do you deliver your speech?

how is your pacing?

are you emphasizing your points?

are you adjusting your tone and speed?

are you making eye contact?

are you delivering your speech to your audience, or are you just reading your speech?

did you practice your delivery?

Do you have a claim and a solid line of reasoning?

are you incorporating your stats/facts or relying on them?

Facts/stats should enhance your argument, not be the center of it.

Are you brining in something new/unique or are you just repeating previous points?

Is your speech well researched?

Rebuttals

are you able to effectively challenge and counter opposing arguments?

are your rebuttals grounded in facts, or anecdotal in nature?

Understanding of legislation and how our political system works

did you do your research?

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

I am a lay judge; this year is my first year (day) judging.

Speak clearly and slowly- I cannot overstress this point. If I can't hear your argument, I won't flow your argument.

Debate is a polite sport. Take note.

1. Experience: I have done three years of PF and extemp. I can deal with most spreading in PF; I was a second speaker.

2. Framework: If you don't say anything else, I'll assume cost/benefit. I won't like anything abusive though.

3. Extensions: I'll weigh whatever is extended through to final focus. But don't just extend, tell me why your argument is more important.

4. Evidence: I prefer authors and dates. If the evidence is self explanatory, then that's fine; it can speak for itself. If it isn't clear, then you need to link it to the resolution. I'm fine with paraphrased evidence, as long as its not abusive/misleading, and its used to sum up some non-text evidence or long essay.

5. Cross: I don't flow this, but I pay attention to what is said. It's important for clarifying what is happening.

6. Defense: extend it in summary; however, in summary, narrow it down to a few responses, not a shotgun approach.

7. Theory: In PF, I don't think we should have theory unless an abuse happens. Public forum is about the arguments, not who can argue theory that doesn't apply to the resolution, but I'm not going to vote against you for reading theory.
I honestly don't care that much about disclosure. My circuit doesn't do it.

8. Analysis and evidence: I like analysis. Not all arguments need to be based on some prewritten evidence or block if you can explain it well. However, if your analysis and response is based on something that a debater wouldn't know, then you need a card, or explain it really well.

9. Sign posting and road maps: please sign post, I can deal without road maps, but if your speech is, or will be, all over the place, then please do an off time road map.

10. I've seen tricks on some other paradigms. I don't know what that is. Take that as you will.

11. Other stuff: I don't have cards or authors memorized. Tell me something beyond just the author's name in round if you're referring to a card. I don't like underdeveloped arguments, but I understand if you tried something and it fell through. Just don't put out something you know won't work for the sake of a shotgun approach to responding to arguments. You win based on persuasion, not on saying words really fast and hoping something sticks.

12. I swear this is the last thing: Debate is about communication, so do your best not to be really dry. I prefer some humor.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Speaking quickly is fine, but if I can't actually understand what your evidence is saying, I will likely not give that evidence as much weight.

Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

New judge. 

i dropped out of harvard to save the debate game

former PF debater for bellevue, 2x national and elims, state elims too

I flow, expect to see good clash etc. expect respect for your opponent and will dock speaks if you are rude in cross.

as andrew lee said put thought and effort into the words that you say!

I am a new judge in 2022 and excited to be a part of debate!

Similar to other judges, I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

I greatly appreciate good speaking skills and professional presentation. Please enunciate, make periodic eye contact and speak slowly and clearly. If I do not hear it and cannot note it for consideration, unfortunately I cannot refer to it when making my final decision. Demonstrate that you know your material well enough to not read directly off of the page.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not. I prefer clarity of evidence and impacts, with valid reference to resources.

Be sure to advance arguments, clearly respond to your opponents arguments and attempt to discredit your opposition. Unaddressed arguments will carry more weight. Please make sure that you and your partner are cohesive.

Other points:

Please sign post - this will ensure that I properly note ideas and contentions.

Please avoid use of complex debate jargon.

Be respectful of your opponents, do not interrupt, and be polite through the competition.

Please no observers.

This is high school debate. It's a fun, learning experience. I don't expect anyone to be perfect and would hope that you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win or not.

This is my first year as a PF judge.

I am not a native speaker, so please work on the articulation (practicing with a pencil between your teeth helps), and make pauses when you want to emphasize that you just said something important.

• No spreading - I won't understand you if you do so, and your opponents may not understand either.
• Listen carefully to the opponent team.
• Be respectful. I will not tolerate aggressive attitudes.
• Use inclusive language.
• Use you full time.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging on this topic. Please time yourselves, and make sure to stay within the time limits. I will stop flowing if you go over the time.

If you want to win, I need to understand what you are saying. If you want to speak fast, speak clear.

I value well written arguments. If the core argument does not make sense, even with no refutation against it, I cannot guarantee I will vote for it. Even so, make sure you are prioritizing touching on all of your opponent's points down the flow. I think that using evidence or logic as a refutation is good, as long as it makes actual sense with realistic backing.

I will listen in on crossfire, so make sure you are able to answer questions and understand your own case, but I will not flow cross or vote on arguments brought up in crossfires. Make sure to further them in later speeches.

Again, I understand the need to cut people off in cross, but please be sure to stay respectful to your opponents.

Biggest thing: If you are in any way anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, or display any other form of hatred, I will drop your team and stop the round at that point. Debate is meant to be an inclusive activity. If you ruin that for someone, I am dropping you.

TL;DR: Be kind, have fun, warrant your arguments and weigh at the end of the round. There's a lot of stuff in here that's geared toward more experienced people. If you are a novice, I understand that you're new to this, and don't expect any of this to be perfect.

Seattle U Specific: I know a bit about the topic, so general definitions aren't needed for me (unless there's something specific in your definition you think adds to the round).

Speed: Talking fast is ok as long as you have good pronunciation and slow down on tags. I'll call out "clear" if I can't understand you (or raise my hand for online tournaments). So long as you can see me flowing, I'm keeping up with your speed.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you still have a cut card and citation. I generally won't vote on paraphrasing theory unless you have a very good reason for running it. After the round, I will read cards if either team tells me to.

Case: Just read it. The only really important thing is that I don't allow the second-speaking team to take prep after the first case is read. You don't need that time and it's just rude.

Rebuttal: Please number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

First Rebuttal: Just give a rebuttal, don't go back over your own case. That just wastes your time and I'm probably not even flowing because you're not saying anything new.

Second Rebuttal: Please collapse. You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every argument you are going for fully. Bonus points if you can start weighing, but I know that's a lot.

- Disads are fine in first rebuttal, I'm not going to evaluate one read in second unless it's super super relevant (ie. most likely just a long turn).

Summary: Please give me good warranting for everything. Just saying "they're wrong" or the equivalent and then moving on is not a proper response.

First Summary: As a first speaker, I know it's a lot. Collapse on your case. I would also suggest you start with your own case so that in the worst-case scenario, you have at least some evidence. YOU MUST WEIGH HERE.

Second Summary: I expect more of you here because the other team has already collapsed and you should have too. In order to win my vote, you MUST weigh in second summary, as I will not evaluate any weighing that is new in Second Final. Keep in mind, just saying you win in magnitude and timeframe is not enough to then fully weigh in FF, start the warranting for your weighing in Second Sum.

Final Focus: Give me the voters and weigh. You also need to carry through at least a little of your defense, don't drop it all now.

I don't have anything specific I'm looking for in either FF. The only big thing is that I hate when teams try to misuse being second in FF, you don't just get to make stuff up. I won't evaluate anything not brought up in Summary in FF.

Speaks: I'm pretty lenient and probably won't go below a 27 unless something really bad happened (ie. being overly rude). There are three main things that will drop your speaks with me.

1) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards

2) Stealing prep time

3) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic

Coach and judge of 18 years.

Lincoln Douglas:

I always fall back on the basic explanations on the National Speech and Debate LD ballot.

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

*This is paramount for me.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

*I dislike when one debater puts the burden of proof on the other side.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a
student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to them as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

*No spreading/speed reading. I put huge emphasis on clarity. Persuade me with your language and well crafted thoughts. If I can't understand you, you can't win.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of their opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the
refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round
based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com.

LD

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

PF

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

• Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
• Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
• Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
• Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
• Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
• Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
• Content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
• Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

• New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
• New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
• Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
• Bad spreading
• Bad evidence
• Debaters that don't look at their timers
• Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

Background: 4 years of Public Forum Debate Experience, Lots of Speech Experience, current member of the Cal Parli team.

General Paradigms:

• Make sure your warranting is sound. Creating link chains and reaching impacts only works for me if you have good substance to your arguments.
• For later speeches, remind yourself to balance offense/defense and prioritize arguments that stand better on the flow. Do not feel the need to pace through going over every single thing that has been said in the round to not gain any offense or frontlines on your case.
• Be respectful. Have fun.

Hey guys.

I'm a current Junior & Public Forum debater, so I know what it's like. I am a flow judge.

I have a couple things I want to see:

1. RESPECT no rudeness in cross, no talking down, no lying–show decorum to your opponents
2. SIGNPOSTING refer to your arguments and stay organized in your speeches–off-time roadmaps are ok
3. VOTERS + WEIGHING I need impacts and voters for any argument to be worthwhile, so establish these in your speeches
4. USE CARDS EFFECTIVELY my biggest debate pet peeve is when debaters only state the name of their card without actually reading it–to flow through your evidence, please read your cards
5. ϖ∂₯Ωµ₨₻₪₩¬in;§¤‰∠∫℘ℑ圆ζΘℵ

I'll give speaker points with an average of 28, and I'll disclose if the tournament allows.

Good luck.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

Hello everyone reading this,

If I am your judge, you are in good hands. Do not despair !

I have experienced judging pf little but not much. So if there are any rules that opponents are being against, let me know

A couple things I would like to see:

When you are reading cards, try not to read fast. Key is to make sure that the Judge understands why your side is more significant.

I like basic, plain arguments that have good links and good evidence backing up. However, I am open to other, non-conventional arguments if they make sense and if you are able to explain it in detail to everyone.

I’m not too big on argument structure, just make sure that you tell me exactly where you are very clearly or I will be lost.

No new arguments in summary or final focus, except in response to new arguments that your opponents have made.

I am a BIG fan of evidence debate, so if your opponent has biased evidence or just evidence from Wikipedia, please do go attack it. The same goes for having evidence at all. Please have evidence, and make sure it’s valid evidence supported by warrants.

Weighing is key to winning the ballot. Weighing allows you to tell me why I should prefer your arguments over your opponents. Collapse on impacts would easily result in losing a ballot.

Lastly, speaker points are based off of a combination of technical skill and being nice. I’m usually generous with the speaker points so just try your best guys : )

Hello everyone,

I would consider followings in my judge,

1) Speak clearly 2) Respect each other - don't want you to bother your opponent's speaking

3) Make questions/answers precisely

4) Keep time strictly

Good Luck!

Email Address : damonrang79@gmail.com

i'm katelyn (she/her). i am a freshman at the university of washington studying art history and finance. i previously competed on the washington state circuit and nat circuit for a bit.

ask me questions about my paradigm before the round, i don't mind. also, please let me know (send me an email/tell me in round) how i can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable. my email is katelyndkim@gmail.com

i am a flow judge and will be tech>truth unless your ev is really really bad. however, please do not exploit this to read a lot of blippy, unwarranted arguments

my experience and outlook on debate

- i have competed in pf since my freshman year on both the wa and nat circuit. i have a good amount of experience.

- while i believe that debate is a game, it is not an excuse for you to be a jerk. please be aware that the arguments you make are about real people. looking back on my debate career, i really hope that you don't read arguments that commodity pain just for a ballot. your arguments do not disappear once you leave the round.

general judging stuff

- tech>truth, tabula rasa

- run whatever tbh

- i will not evaluate any arguments unless they are extended into summary and ff

- no new arguments in 2nd summary or final focus

- i will call for important evidence if you tell me to call for it

- collapse

- i can flow decently fast. if i can't understand you, i will say "clear"

- please signpost

in round

* tl:dr

- if you're above 350wpm, send speech doc

- extended your arguments into ff if you want me to vote on them. don't drop something in summary and then tell me to vote on it later

- i really like when people read cool cases and arguments (e.g. well written disads, kicking out, link-ins, pre-reqs, etc.)

* pre round

- start an email chain to share ev

* case

- whatever

- if you're going to read fast, send your case before you start speaking

* rebuttal

- if you are second rebuttal, frontline

* summary

- collapse

- no sticky defense

- extend your case + warrants

- frontline if you are first summary

- weigh

- extend by the author's last name. please don't extend by the author's full name or institution name because i will only flow the author's last name

* final focus

- actually weigh please (compare)

- extend important things

* after round

- give me a sec to fill out my ballot and i'll disclose if i'm allowed to

- don't post-round me

weighing

- weigh. start early please.

- tell me why you outweigh and actually compare impacts

- don't just re-read impacts

- i will weigh if you don't. don't risk my biases hurting your record

evidence

- i will tune out if you start a full evidence debate

- if you tell me to call for a card, i will card for that card. remind me if i forget at the end (tbh this will probs happen)

- if the card is misconstrued, i will dock speaks, and will not consider the card in my rfd

- please do not do evidence debates. i hate them so much

- do not take forever to send ev. i'll cut it off at some point if the round is running too long

prog

- please be aware that i have only done pf do i have limited knowledge about prog

- i'm am okay at evaluating pf level theory/ks (please explain them well if you read them)

- don't read friv theory or tricks

- read prog at your own risk

misc.

- i will default to the team that speaks first if there is absolutely nowhere for me to vote in the round

- i do not care about cross. i will probably be doing something else

- i will always disclose who won as long as the tournament permits. ask me questions about my rfd.

- ask me questions about my paradigm

speaks

- i am chill with speaks. if you don't do anything gross, i will probably give you a 27+

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

About me: I graduated 4 years ago. I debated Public Forum for 4 years. Studied Econ and Political Science.

About the round: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. If you're unable to explain your cards that looks very bad and will be very easy to refute. I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework, I like that, but you need to tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Don't be afraid to concede on smaller arguments in the round to give yourself a strategic advantage on bigger arguments. This is crucial in many rounds.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

Overall, do whatever you want, just do it well.

If you have any further questions please ask.

I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points. Speak clearly and give opportunity to the other side and have a healthy debate. Understand the purpose of these debates, it for finding the loopholes in your understanding....

Info:

• I use she/her pronouns, and I'm tech>truth.
• I'm a freshman at Wesleyan, add me clei@wesleyan.edu to any email chains pls!
• I've debated for 6 years in PF at both the local and state level

More info: If you're going to read anything sensitive, give consent warnings otherwise change what you're running.

- Extend your links and impacts through all speeches, unless dropped by their summary

- New args in ff/2nd summary are unnecessary and unfair, don't do it/i wont evaluate them

-I'm good with speed, but don't speak fast if it won't be eloquent. It's much better to be slow and understandable (if you're 300WPM+ send a speech doc if you can

- Pls pls collapse

- When you weigh, tell me why. Don't just say "we outweigh" Metaweigh if you can!

Evidence:

- If you tell me to call for a card, I will.

- If the card is misconstrued I will dock speaks, and drop u if it’s a key card

Preferably, don't make it an evidence debate those are not fun :(

Other:

-I'll put your speaks as low as I can if you make any sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic comments and drop you

-Let your opponents finish speaking in cross. I don't evaluate cross but if you're being REALLY rude i'll deduct speaks

-tell me ur zodiac sign, and if we're compatible, ill start ur speaks from 29, otherwise they start from 28

Background:

I'm a fourth-year debater at Interlake, but this is my 5th year debating in general. I'm definitely a flay judge with a little more leaning towards the flow. If there are any questions, feel free to ask before round.

General:

• Be nice and I'll be nice :)
• Tech > Truth unless you are going for some extreme args (War is good)
• Email: anna.ziqi.li@gmail.com, add me to email chains
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• Defense isn't sticky unless your opponents don't respond to it, when extending, please extend warrants, links, don't just toss me a card name
• Please weigh (I have some general knowledge on this topic, you don't want my biases to harm your outcome)
• No new args after first summary, I won't flow them
• Signpost!!

Evidence:

• Evidence debates are icky, just use legit evidence
• Paraphrasing is fine, cards are better
• If I find something really sketchy, I'll call cards after round
• If evidence is misconstrued, I'll drop it and possibly dock speaks

Theory/Progressive Args:

• Run at own risk, only experience is winning disclosure theory in a meme round

Other:

• Speaks start at 27
• Off-time roadmaps are cool
• Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, etc

Post-round if time allows:

• I might disclose but don't count on it
• I'll probably give feedback
• Feel free to ask questions

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled claims and warrants.

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

Hello, here are some things to note about how I will judge:

Please emphasize clarity over speed, as I will have difficulty keeping up if you talk too fast. English is also my second language, so please be patient. Additionally, as I am a parent judge without much familiarity with debate, I would appreciate if you limit your usage of technical terms. I will also dock points if you are overly aggressive in cross examination; be polite and respectful to your fellow competitors.

That’s all! Good luck!

My name is Michaele pronounced Mi-kel. I’m a parent judge with two years of experience. I still consider myself a lay judge and prefer a clear and slower speaking style.

I also prefer quality over quantity in regards to arguments. Clarity is very important as well as I need to understand each person’s points clearly in order to judge fairly.

I appreciate debaters who are respectful and patient with each other (and with me too).

Also, being a debater is a huge and impressive accomplishment. And I say this as a mom, I hope you are all proud of yourself!

Hello all, I am a new judge.

What you need to know as a debater:

Please communicate your points clearly and slowly. If I’m able to follow information, it will help in my voting. I won’t know if you’re losing badly, my decision will be based on my comprehension of overall presentation – was I able to follow and understand the points you are trying to make.

I don’t enjoy spreading, talking fast, even if you enunciate. I don’t have the practice and experience to process information at a rapid rate you may be accustomed to as a seasoned debater. I will not be able to keep up.

I appreciate debaters taking the time to outline.

What I love:

I welcome debaters to lead and communicate the structure of debate.

•Speed:I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast I’ll let you know. If you still don’t slow down, I’ll hold up my pen and then set it down to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization:Clarity and structure are important to me. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Impact calc/weighing impacts:HIGHLY encouraged in final speeches, especially if you are into winning.

•Extend your arguments:Please no surprises in Final Focus.

•Policy style arguments:I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

I do not like "theory." Debate the topic.

As always...for me, quality is much better than quantity. It is better to have one or two really strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

While I can handle spreading, if I can't understand something you say because you speak too quickly or unclearly, then I can't write it down. If I can't write it down, then I can't refer back to it when making my final decision. In other words, it's as if you never said it.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not.

Other points:

Signposting is good. Please signpost. Is this a new thought or more warrants or impacts on the same claim?

Off-time road maps are bad. They are a waste of "real" time. I'm guessing you're going to tell me why you're right and they're wrong. Right? If you signpost, I'll know which order you're going in. This is a more valuable skill to learn. For those of you motivated by speaker points, know that I will deduct a full point for each off-time road map.

Be respectful of your opponents. Let's be real, if the coin toss were different, you'd be arguing for the other side so don't act like your entire life's work has focused on your stance on this topic. Keep it civil. On a related note, rudeness is unacceptable as is outright lying. I've seen too many teams blatantly lie in round. If you lie, you lose.

Yearn to Learn. This is high school debate. It's a learning experience. I don't expect you to be perfect and would hope you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win this round or not.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

Hi - Please slow down for your main contentions. Ensure you're well structured - sign posts are welcome. Don't forget to clarify impact.

be clear & limit spreading please

Jonathan Tao, jonathantao.2005@gmail.com

1st Year Undergrad, 4 years PF experience in HS on local & nat circ, quite rusty cus senior year was rather chill lolol, count me as flay-lay

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZV7xWdT

uHteXXQR2AVWKXA9ab2-yCMNW5jlgv5j_CGY/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR:

-I have MINIMAL topic knowledge, take that as you will

-Don't spread, spreading = instant minimum speaks (no, sending a speech doc doesn't work, do policy)

-If you think you're speaking too fast, you probably are

-Theory/K's/Progressive = drop unless there is a LEGITIMATE reason (See below for legitimate reason)

-Blatant and Intentional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia or other discrimination/egregious behavior (Lying, etc.) = instant drop

-Tabula Rasa, run anything that makes sense and maybe something that doesn't :D

-Google Docs & Email Chain both work, but I prefer Docs

-Have fun, don't take or make anything personal

-Any questions abt paradigm or something not on it, plz ask before round, I'll do my best to answer

------

On Substance:

-Dropped Arguments should to be mentioned to be dropped, else I'll still entertain it

-Clash is nice, interact with their arguments

-Devote some time to weighing plz

On Evidence:

-Unless something is critical to the debate I will not ask to see it, if you say I should discount it you better have a decent warrant

On Timing:

-I'll keep time, but am inclined to give grace periods, don't exploit it. I reserve the right to drop speaks and tell yall to get on with it

(If you sing a duet after FF +5 Speaks & I will be very impressed)

Hi, I am a new judge. I understand the parameters of debate (value, criterion, etc).

i am looking for a good flow with clarity and articulation that makes it easier to understand. Organization, well laid on out points, and clear responses to opponents cases is important to me.

Best,

Jessica

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

consider me a flay judge, I'll flow but I most likely won't catch everything

- I have to write feedback, I'll flow constructive on paper, don't worry I'm still listening when I type feedback after constructive speeches

- please be kind in cross, but don't let the other team walk over you. I like a heated cross, but no insults thrown pls ????????

- I don't flow cross, but I'm listening

- no Ks or anything crazy, I'm not tryna work my brain too hard

- NO MUMBLE RAPPING or else I will start crying and throwing up in round and make ur speaks 0

- please interact with the opponent's case, don't assume I know everything you're talking about, and WEIGH

- truth>tech

- be kind and have fun, bring me food or compliment me every time u start prep for +1 speaks (u can tell me my hair looks nice or smth)

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Hello Debaters!

I was a PF debater in high school much like many of you. Below are some of the basic things I look for in a good debate round and some things I wish to avoid seeing.

Things I look for:

The top thing I look for when weighing a debate is the evidence and the weight of said evidence. Give me hard numbers for things that have impact. Saying "a lot" or "many" is subjective and I will be a bit more harsh on the impact of evidence that does not include some sort of number when applicable. For example, if you're going to say that something is harming people, give me a number of people hurt to work with. The other half of evidence is the freshness of it. If there are two conflicting statements being made, I will most likely go with the statement that is backed by more recent evidence if the two are reasonably similar in credibility. If you can show me that your evidence is more credible AND recent, you are in a strong position.

Another thing I would love to see is the clear explanation of unique or specific terms. If the general person would not know what something means, assume I don't either as I would like to fully understand any and all things that you say. If there is a term I do not understand, I will not be able to judge anything based on relative information that relies on that term.

Finally, give me clear indications of when new contentions are going to be stated. This can easily be done by stating "Contention 1... Contention 2..." so on, so forth. I will listen closely regardless, but the easier you make it to follow along, the easier it will be to figure out your contentions.

Things I want to avoid:

Some things I wish to avoid are spreading, aggression of any form, and all types of disrespect to anyone.

For spreading, if I can't write down what you said due to how fast you spoke, I will not be able to use it to the same degree of if I was able to write it down.

For aggression, just use common sense and know when you are being rude or overly pushy. I love seeing passionate debates, but there is a point when it gets aggressive and uncomfortable.

Lastly, please do not disrespect your opponents in any way. While it will not affect who won the round (unless it does become overtly negative), please avoid any sort of action that can be perceived as disrespectful. This includes laughing at speakers for any reason. Again, my decision will not be affected by it in most cases, but be aware that I will mark down significant speaker points for it.

General things that win my vote:

Be willing to concede points of contention if it means you can focus on more impactful portions of the debate. While small wins are important and add up, if you can show me that you win the debate off of something that is bigger than the other points combined, you probably have won the round. I look for quality over quantity. Having more contentions or small victories does not mean you have won the round. Focus on points that are significantly impactful within the topic.

Show me you won! Summary should be used to reinforce your own ideas and expose weaknesses in the opponents' contentions that were uncovered during crossfire and anything leading up to it. I will not make connections for you unless you state why I should care about things that were brought up. In a similar fashion, Final Focus should be used to show me why you won. Give me the big picture and leave me without a doubt that my vote should go towards you. I consider these two speeches to be the most vital parts of the debate when making my decision. As a side note, do not bring up new information in final focus. I will not include it in my decision making and it will not have any affect.

Final notes:

I will give out speaker points in a fair and equitable manner. Points will be based on the above things mentioned and how you compare to the other speakers during that round.

I am here to help you have a fun and constructive time so please feel free to ask me questions about anything related to me or my paradigms before the round begins.

Best of luck everyone!

• I flow

• Im okay with speed, I am not okay with mumble rapping

• run wtv u want just keep in mind I will unlikely vote for tricks or frivolous theory

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

Rabula Tesla, BS>truth>tech, I define BS as any words that come out of my mouth so please quote me to win.

Second re-bundle must line-front and first summary must extend deed feces.

I will literally be weighing your arguments in a round by bringing in a scale. Print out your cases and put them onto the scale. Whoever’s arguments weigh heavier are the ones I will look to first. The same applies to extensions. Every time you extend an argument, please stretch the argument on the piece of paper or else it will not be evaluated. Longer extensions win rounds. As for collapsing, sadly the tournament told me I cannot encourage kids to faint in rounds. Sorry. No collapsing in my rounds or else I will have to report you to tab for my own safety.

Speed:

Unfortunately, with my debate experience, I have developed a fervent dislike of normal speed speeches. If you don't go over 300 wpm, i will give you very low speaks.

Progressive:

As a flay congressional debater, I do not understand Prog. However, I do understand Pog, so if you can yell pog as many times as you read your progressive arguments, I will vote on them. (Example: a is the pog interp, debaters must not poggly paraphrase. B is the pog violation: they paraphrased poggly.)

Speaks:

I believe everything in life has to be earned step by step so speaks start at a prompt 0 and go up .01 for everything you did that I liked. If you have ever done the wonderful art known as congressional debate, your speaks will start at promptly -1. This is a simulation for the real world in which nothing will come easily.

Cross: Debate is an activity that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you WILL have people who yell at you when they ask questions. So naturally, you MUST be louder to win those confrontations. Thus, whoever yells louder in cross will get +5 speaker points.