kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

yes email chain: mayaychu@gmail.com

freshman at princeton (not debating)

iowa city west '23

2N/1A

she/her

for ihssa: no topic knowledge, overexplaining would not be a bad idea

-

top level:

- be nice

- time yourself

- open CX is fine

- you can insert ev

- fine with speed but be clear

- judge instruction is always very helpful

- make smart analytics, slow down when doing so, and send them if they're pre-written

preferences:

- policy > clash >>> K v K

- K affs: love framework debating but probably neg-biased

- will vote on reasonability but only if you explain how i can determine it

- tech >>> truth except for offensive arguments (fine w spark, wipeout, etc)

- condo good, but will vote on condo bad if you win (proving in-round abuse is a good way to do this)

- i have other predispositions, but good debating can (of course) overcome all of them

email chain/email for comments: drewgartner1@gmail.com

Debate background:

Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15

Coaching: Iowa City High '15-'18. '21- present

Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.

Important Disclaimer Addendum: My comfortability with full mega-speed has lowered, especially in the realm of analytics. I would like your analytics to be slower, so I can really get it all down. Taking a few year break from debate really impacted my full spread comprehension.

I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed.

I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.

General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.

Speech Docs/ Email chains

I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain at drewgartner1@gmail.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.

Speaker Points

It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.

Iowa City West 24'

he/him

prpau24@icstudents.org

Add me to the email chain

I have some topic knowledge but have done minimal research on the topic. Try and go a bit slower than usual when spreading for my maximum clarity and understanding.

Tech > Truth

Condo good(but will vote on condo bad) and will vote on most if not any arguments that are explained thoroughly.

Be nice and don't try and be mean to your opponent, there's a difference between that and making witty remarks.

Read slower on Theory shells and analytics(pls)

Background

Graduated from ICW | freshman at Columbia

ashleyseo23@gmail.com

she/her

NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!

Please put me on the email chain and feel free to email me after the round if you have any questions

General

Slow down on tags, analytics, and theory shells or I won't be able to flow/evaluate them. I'd prefer if they were on the speech doc too if possible (I think it's silly to waste prep time to delete pre-written analytics from speech docs).

Tag team cross-ex is fine but don't overuse it (I should be able to tell whose cross-ex it is)

I don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia etc.

BE NICE there's no point in being rude or condescending to your opponents and I'll drop your speaks (you can be witty without being rude)

Don't try to suck up to me

Don't talk loudly during your opponent's speeches/prep

Impact comparison and judge instruction would be great, and can definitely make you win a round you would otherwise lose

Tech>truth except for offensive arguments

Policy > Clash > K v K --- I'm a lot more familiar with policy style args (you can totally read Ks/K affs but explain them well. I won't vote on it if I don't understand it)

I have predispositions but I'll vote on anything if you debate them well enough

Jayden Shin

Iowa City West 23'

I have more experience in circuit debate, but most likely I'm judging a novice local tournament.

Email: jaydenshindebate@gmail.com

pls have an email chain set up before the round starts

TL;DR

I will literally vote for any argument you run (k, t/theory, phil, larp, tricks) as long as it is warranted

Err on the side of over-explanation.

Tech > Truth

Any speed as long it is comes through for online debate. I'll say clear like twice.

Speaks will not be influenced by what you read, just what you do in the round (e.g. strategy, politeness, etc)

Theory/T: Yes, love it. Sometimes T can be dumb, but I'll vote on dumb T.

LARP: Sure. But bland. Sure

Kritiks: Superb. Explain as if I don't know even if I do

Framework (Phil): Great, I love to see a well executed phil debate

Tricks: I love tricks unless you spam random aprioris, then I hate you. Be creative, innovated, and fun.

Speed: Speed is good. Slow down on taglines. I'll say "Clear" a couple of times before I affect your speaks.

Speaks: Crack a joke (depending on the mood), creativity, strategy, etc. Don't beat down on novices.

Disclosure: I don't hate disclosure, I don't love it. I'll be tab on the shell

Rounds with Novices: Most likely I'll judge these rounds. Be inclusive if you have more experience.

Novice v Novice rounds are great, try your best and be confident. Be confident. Not arrogant.

Trad/Local: Ignore everything about progressive above, you do you, warrant stuff, run wild, make the debate fun.

My pet peeve is when debaters take debate way too serious. I.e. there's a difference between being too serious to the point it becomes uncomfortable vs being dedicated to debate. In round, it won't change your speaks or the ballot, but just know that pulling up with a sweatshirt is more appealing to me than wearing formal clothes.

Call me Jayden.

Owen Snyder

Junior @ The Barstow School

owen.snyder.debate@gmail.com

I want to judge the arguments that you want to run. I believe that asserting my argumentative preferences is a fundamental hindrance to the aspirations and unique preferences of each debater in the activity.

That being said, i'm not super knowledgable on kritik literature outside of the basics (i.e. cap, security, fem ir, setcol, etc.), so if you are reading something which isn't as 'mainstream', please add some additional explanation of the thesis of the kritik for the sake of my understanding.

Clipping will result in an automatic L, though I will allow the round to finish. I define clipping as missing 5 or more words in a single card, though I reserve the right to vote you down for less. I don't distinguish between accidental and malicious intentions here.

PLEASE only read cards that are highlighted.If you read unhighlighted cards, your speaker points will go down.

If you have questions about specific arguments or desire clarification, you can feel free to ask me questions before the round or via email.

Hi, I'm Quincy. I’m an assistant coach at Iowa City West, I am in college at the University of Iowa, I debated for 2 years and I have been judging LD for 4 years, PF for 3 years and speech events for 2 years. For the sake of transparency, I’ve only judged 4-5 bid tournaments, but again, I’ve been around the block.

Email Chain Format:

Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs. School Name (Neg)

My email: qat1@rice.edu.
Share a couple of minutes before round. My email has a spam blocker, so it WILL take at least 3 minutes before I receive any email you send.

1. Spreading: If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain. If I have to say ‘clear’ more than twice, I will stop flowing until your you achieve clarity again.

2. Speaks:

a) Strategy: Debate is an intellectual battle. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged.

b) Common Courtesy: Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Signposting is always good. Off-time road map, etc. DBAA- don’t be a jerk.

c) Presentation: This has everything to do with how you carry yourself. Wealth can’t buy class. You can look more presentable with a $3 t-shirt than in a rumpled $500 suit.

I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.

3. Norms Setting: I will harshly punish prejudice (ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), evidence ethics violations, and other tomfoolery. I reserve the right to unilaterally drop you from the round if the violation is egregious enough. On the flip side, frivolous IVIs will not convince me.

Don't steal prep time, don't stall, and have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them.

4. Ks: I will give VERY low speaks if you run an identity K(e.g, afropess, queerpess, etc.) that doesn’t apply to you (e.g. afropess but you aren’t black).

5. tech > truth. Obviously. If you win K > theory, I’ll vote on that. If you do the opposite, I’ll vote on that too.

Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

P.S. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any (current) IC West Debater.

Badgerland Only: online tournaments often have audio issues. Please ensure your environment is clear of ambient noise. I’d hate to vote incorrectly because of audio interruptions.

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '26

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. I will give you good speaks if you read a new paradox that I've never heard of and you clearly know what it says (or if you invent a paradox/trick). I will also give you good speaks if you execute theory tricks creatively. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive higher speaks.

Ks

I read a lot of ks. I like k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC. Some literature I am fairly familiar with is Deleuze, Nietzsche, Camus, Lacan, Baudrillard and Berardi. If I didn't list something you can still read it this is just some authors I am more familiar with compared to others.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. I.e. 1ar theory before NC theory or vice versa.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify). And, if you throw in a good roast we can have a good laugh.

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.5-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29-29.5: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

28.8-29: You'll probably break.

28.5-28.7: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28-28.5:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.5-28: You did a little worse than average.

Last Updated
Sep 26, 2017

Background
Second year at the University of Chicago
Qualified to TOC (2015, 2016)
Won IHSSA State Tournament (2015, 2016)
Email: adam.zabner@gmail.com (please include me on the chain)

Disclaimer: I have done no research on the immigration topic. While I'll certainly do my best to keep up, I might need a bit more explanation from you than other judges. Try to avoid using acronyms before you have explained them.

General Philosophy: I would like to do as little work as possible to decide your debate. Rebuttals that I can copy paste onto my ballot will be rewarded with both speaker points and the ballot. If you fail to pick and choose your best arguments and wrap up the debate, I will be unhappy. It is your burden to explain your arguments to me, and while I will do my best to comprehend you, I will not be embarrassed to vote against arguments that I don't understand by the end of the debate.

Specifics:

Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.

Counter Plans- My favorite neg strategies include well crafted, specific counterplans. As the aff, it is important to explain clearly the differences between the aff and the cp starting from the 2ac. I think that the aff gets to provide the plan text and nothing more ie. if the neg is able to characterize the plan in a certain way (with definitions or topic literature), I will be unsympathetic to aff teams that try and wish it away without in depth arguments. there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counterplan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team

Ks- The more time you spend talking about the aff, the more likely I am to vote for your k. I love being introduced to new ideas, and am willing to vote for any argument that is well explained but I am not as well versed in this literature as I am in other negative strategies.

"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I think of debate as a game.

T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.

Speaker Points

The more you engage with the arguments and evidence presented by the other team, the more speaker points you will receive.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all and it won't affect the decision calculus, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points.