No Unintelligible Spreading

Email: chiniwalas@gmail.com

About Me:

Coppell '21 | UT Austin '25 | He/Him

Coach for Coppell High School

Debate Basics:

1. Extend your arguments, please... I hate having to vote teams down because of this, but it is the simplest thing to do and one of the easiest ways to make sure you don't lose a ballot. If you are confused as to how to do this, please ask me before the round.

1a. An extension just needs to include the claim and warrant of an argument. If you want to include the author/cite and the full tagline, then go for it. However, the bare minimum of an extension is claim+warrant.

1b. Regarding the extension of progressive arguments. I think that there is an inherent advantage to a theory/(non-topical) critical/ROB argument compared to case/substance-based arguments so if you read one of the former arguments in a constructive speech you must extend said argument in the rebuttal (this is not necessary for the latter).

2. Make sure that you have some form of offense at the end of the round. It is really easy to get caught up talking about one point and making sure that you win it, but make sure that said argument is going to help you win the round and isn't purely defensive.

3. Defense is not sticky. I don't want to sound like an old man, but back in my day we had 2-minute summaries and we still had to extend our defense. If you can't make it happen in a 3-minute summary, read fewer arguments.

4. I'm a little more lenient with impact terminalization (i.e. poverty decreases by 2%, saves 20 million lives per degree increase, etc.) but note that this makes it easier for your opponents to turn your impact and it makes it harder for you to do impact calculus. Also, while I won't dock you directly, if your opponents point out that your impact is vague/unclear it might make me less likely to vote for you.

5. I would like to think I am pretty decent at evaluating theory and other progressive arguments, but slow down a little if you are going to be reading something that you think is hard to understand. When in doubt, run it by me before the round (email or just ask). That being said, I do have certain beliefs (disclosure good, paraphrase bad) that won't affect the round unless you ask me to vote on reasonability (instead of competing interpretations).

6. Evidence ethics are important, but I won't verify evidence unless one team explicitly tells me to do so. I hate calling for/having to read the evidence, so if I can find a way out of it (without intervening) then I will definitely try to do so. Misrepresenting evidence is a really easy way to lose a round if your opponents call it out and give me an independent voting issue. Without an IVI, I will just drop the evidence from the round if I find it is miscut.

7. I am okay with speed, but as I said, if you are reading something super progressive, then slow down. Other than that, if you are going to spread, then send a speech doc ahead of time.

8. I am tech over truth. The exception is if you say something racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise exclusionary.

9. If you have any other questions, just ask me. I'd like to think I am a nice person (although Shabbir might disagree) and I'm much more likely to be happy if you asked at my preferences instead of just guessing.

For Novices:

Pay attention primarily to 1, 1a, 2, and 4. I can answer any other questions you have before or after the round.

If you have any questions about debate (theory or progressive arguments specifically) please shoot me an email and I'd be happy to answer any that you have!

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Hi!

note for middle school NATS:

congrats on being here!!

• ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
• if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
• I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)

• don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate

• if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
• it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)

• don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable

• ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!

- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)

paradigm:

add me to the email chain :)

ayushj0824@gmail.com

(I also prefer speech drop instead of a email chain)

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

• I'm okay with speed
• I flow
• off time roadmaps please
• I like impact calc and judge instruction
• don't be disrespectful
• have fun :)

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow on tags, send me the docs, "spread" analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you

LD

my event <3

Evaluation stuff:

FW: most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

No friv theory pls: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, if i dont get it, i cant evaluate it properly

Ks: at your own risk

Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but dont expect alot either, just make it so its understandable and please tell a story!

If youre a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesnt mean I wont evaluate it

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar with the lit, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

tricks: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

other things:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

PF and CX, WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

- for worlds just treat me like you would a parent

have fun and good luck!

I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.

For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.

For email chains: jbagwell05@gmail.com

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.

she/her

Colleyville '22; UT '26

I did policy for 3 years and PF for 1

Yes I want to be on the email chain: zhujudy280@gmail.com

Speaks/Notes

I start at 28 and go up from there based on strategy

I appreciate humor and assertiveness, but I'll dock points if you're being straight-up disrespectful to your opponents. 25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. debate is toxic but it doesn't mean you have to be :)

If you can make the round enjoyable for me/make me laugh, I will boost your speaks

Spreading is fine. I will tell you to clear if I can't understand you, but if I have to do it more than twice my flow will start missing arguments

I don't flow cross so if you want something on the flow, you should mention it in your speech

Policy/LD

Run whatever you want, but I tend to get annoyed with some tricks/theory in LD so proceed with caution

Condo is good

Frame/weigh, please. Tell me what impacts/flows are important and why

Ks--I mostly ran Ks and K affs when I did policy. I understand most of the lit bases that are read, with the most experience in Asian identity, racial capitalism, the fem k, and I understand queer theory, afropess, and academy/university ks pretty ok.

I'd like to know what the alt actually does. However, if you can win framework and articulate why that means that you don't need an alt, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isnt answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

line-by-line>long overviews

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--I like these! I do recommend that you connect it to the topic/resolution somehow. just because I like k affs doesn't mean I'll evaluate T/FW any less; I actually like creative framework debates a lot, but more on that in a second

It's really crucial that you win solvency here--your burden of proof is higher than just winning framework on the aff--so please explain in detail how your advocacy works. I tend not to buy mechanisms that rely purely on your speech act; while I think there's truth to the argument, it's not going to hold up very well against well-developed framework teams, so I recommend complicating your solvency beyond that

I really like historical examples! Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive, and maybe I'll learn something from you too

T/FW--I enjoy debates about debate because I do believe that this activity has some impact on our personal lives and how we think about the world; everyone takes different lessons from this activity and we should talk about it. this is also why I tend to weigh args about education, skill-building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments, but I also like when teams entangle them; is one a pre-requisite to another?

Caselists are very welcome

Contextualize your blocks to the round please

PF!

I like "progressive" debate, but don't read straight-up Ks in PF. They are almost always generic, the advocacy underdeveloped, and there's not nearly enough time in the round to have the in-depth discussions that the literature deserves, so proceed with caution.

Weigh! Final focus should mirror summary and make a cohesive narrative that way, so don't get too bogged down in the line-by-line at the end of the day. also please talk to me about soft-left/structural violence framing. I wish more PF debaters went out of their way to incorporate diverse impacts in every pf topic; it helps you win rounds and also expand your perspective as a person.

If you paraphrase, I'll dock speaks. If you still choose to, your cards need to be ready to present to the other team once they call for it. This does not mean that you show them an article and control f for the section that you summarized, it means everything's cut and cited properly. If it takes more than a minute for you to find the card, I'll start your prep.

If you do an email chain and actually keep up with it (sent constructives and speech docs for the cards you read in the speeches after) I'll boost your speaks.