Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

It'll be nice to meet you, but it'll be even better to meet me.

There is a legend of a man who was destined for debate by ancient prophecies written as far back as the 7th century. A man who slaughtered opponents (with words) and never lost a single round during his entire debate career. Many people even at big tournaments simply stopped showing up to rounds when placed against him, knowing better than to waste their time. After winning his final tournament, which he amazingly did by just staring at his opponents for his entire Constructive until they forfeited out of fear, he then retired to being a debate judge so he could live the rest of his days in peace. That man is not me, and in fact does not exist since I made him up five minutes ago.

That said, I did place first at NSDAs, CFLs, and

TOCs for all four years of my debate career. So I

guess I did alright.*

My name is listed as Edwin, but nobody calls me that. People call me a lot of things and Edwin is not one of them. Usually, people call me Cutler, though a lot of people call me Driving, and people I do "business" with call me Joe. You can use whatever you want. That being said, I think debate would be funnier if debaters had to call the judge "Your Honor", so while I won't take off speaker points if you don't, I will add on speaker points if you do.

Among other things, I am known as the writer of the Cool Ultra Tournaments Lacking Extraneous Rules (CUTLER™) Debate Handbook, which can be found here. Sadly, the NSDA is afraid of change and refuses to implement my rules, possibly because I constantly state that it actually would not be an update but rather completely replacing the NSDA. That being said, if both teams come to a mutual agreement, you can debate under the rules outlined in my handbook, minus the topic selection because that would be really difficult to set up on a short notice (unless, of course, both teams would rather debate a different topic).

I'm Tech>Truth, and not in a "as long as the argument makes SOME sense" way like most people are. If your opponents say the sky is green, I want to hear a convincing argument otherwise, or you will lose the round. Arguments based on "but that's ridiculous" are not going to work. The only condition is that whatever argument you make has to tie in to the topic in some way.

I don't prioritize any one way of winning a debate so long as it's effective. If you want to win on weighing, explain why your weighing is the most important. If you want to win by completely knee-capping your opponent's case, explain why their case is flawed (consider an opener such as "Your Honor, the opponent's case is like a donut; it goes around in circles but it has a huge hole in the middle"). If you want to win on theory, please do not do that.

While some judges do not flow crossfire, I do and it heavily factors into my decision. I think crossfire is the best part of the round because that's where the funniest things usually happen. Sadly, the NSDA has constantly rejected my pleas to add "Grander Cross" (see CUTLER™ Public Forum), but this has not extinguished my love for crossfire. Some have complained about this (and you know exactly who you are), but if they didn't want to lose the round on cross, they should have been better. Bring your A-game.

Evidence is a finicky subject. On the one hand, some may argue that evidence is a way to make a round fair. On the other hand, 98% of articles cited are actually made up, according to Sharla Washington of the New York Times. Except, I actually made that up too; see how easy it is? It's very easy to make up evidence, and because only three minutes of prep time is allowed per team, there's often not enough time to sift through all the "evidence". Because of this, I only accept evidence that is physical; in other words, you have to print the articles you're citing. If you haven't done this, don't call for cards. (NOTE: This doesn't apply to online tournaments.)

Lastly, the first team to say the word "like" may or may not instantly lose the round. In addition, because it is beginning to annoy me, saying the word "concede" has the same effect. My reasoning for this is that it would be funny and nothing else. You also won't know if this is a joke until after the round, and even then I may not say if that's why you lost. In addition, I will be generating a list of five random words before each round, and the first person to say one might lose a speaker point. The fun part; I'm not telling you what these words are. But you'll know when you say one, because I'll have a really loud buzzer with me.

Good luck and have fun (or don't, see if I care).

*Note: That's a complete lie too.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hello, debaters. My name is Matthew Neil, and I am an English teacher. For a while now I've also had the privilege of coaching our school's debate team and judging numerous local, state, and national debate tournaments.

As a debate judge, I take pride in helping to shape and facilitate an environment that encourages intellectual growth and critical thinking. What excites me the most about judging is the opportunity to witness firsthand the development of future leaders, advocates, and changemakers.

My love for judging stems from my own experiences as a high school debater. I understand the rigorous mental preparation that goes into each debate, the rush of adrenaline when delivering an argument, and the sense of accomplishment when a point lands successfully.

A debate for me is a chess match of words and ideas. It's a platform where young minds can explore, contest, and refine their worldviews. And it's genuinely inspiring to see the passion and dedication that each of you brings to your arguments.

Remember, my goal as a judge is not to dictate the outcome of the debate but to provide a fair and unbiased assessment of the arguments presented. I believe in clear reasoning, solid evidence, and respectful discourse. I look forward to hearing your ideas and seeing how you navigate the complex world of debate. Good luck to each of you!

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

I am a parent judge so please talk slowly and make sure you time yourself. This is also my first time judging the resolution so I do not have extensive background over the resolution. I value clean concise and reasonable link chains; if I can't follow it (or if it's too crazy), I won't vote off of it. I will flow so extend your arguments.

If you want me to better understand your case, please send to sunny.debate@gmail.com and daodebate@gmail.com (better speaks if you do). Best of luck!

I am a parent judge. Please talk slowly and monitor your own time.

Evidence is important:

1) Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's.

2) Tell me why I should believe your author is saying. With that being said, I tend to believe data, statistics, and empirics over author's opinions.

3) I put greater weight behind recent cards,

pf basic info:

I'm alright with spreading

make sure to clearly present your arguments/case. signposting is important and would be helpful

impact weigh, comparative analysis is crucial

explain arguments is more important than using excessive jargon

preferably don't run theory/K's

have fun and be respectful!

As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

Parent judge.

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

Ihave 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth.I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.