Aiden Bumgarner

Nothrview '22

Email to add:aidenbumgarner@gmail.com

**Keep debates simple, if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it.

**A lot of this is copied from Juliette :)

Top Level

You do you.

Please don't call me judge. It makes me feel REALLY old - just call me Aiden.

Sometimes I make my decisions pretty fast, sometimes that's not the case, so don't take offense at that.

DO NOT SPREAD.

Policy

Shamelessly copy pasted from Ian Yang:

TL;DR: YOU DO YOU. I will do my best to evaluate each argument fairly and tend to vote strictly off the flow.

Tech >>> Truth (99% of the time)

I believe my job as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments made despite my ideological dispositions (if there are any). That means that I will vote on arguments that I don't personally agree with or that other judges may find morally reprehensible. However (comma) if I do not understand an argument, the burden for me pulling the trigger on it is much higher. Why is plan-focus bad? Why is the plan circumvented? These are questions that are your job as a debater to explain to me.

All debate is just impact calculus. Do it, do it well, and most likely you will win.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Dont yell at me... please.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Top Level:

My approach to judging debate has evolved in recent years in an effort to avoid judge intervention and to reward which teams give the best speeches.

• I exclusively flow on paper during debates and do not follow along with speech documents. Given this, I only examine evidence after the debate if specifically requested. It is crucial for debaters to effectively communicate the warrants of their evidence and to evaluate their opponents' evidence for validity and context. If you'd like me to read certain pieces evidence after the debate is over, please instruct me to do so in your speech. Otherwise, I'll decide based off the explanation given during the debate.

• While I do not have a preference for any specific type of argument, I am most familiar with policy debate (i.e., topicality, counterplans, and disadvantages). I believe that 1AC should affirm the resolution in some way. Although I am open to critiques, it is important that links are contextualized to the 1AC.

• To ensure I am fully engaged, I rarely use my laptop during rounds. I recommend speaking at 80% of your normal speed if clarity is an issue for you.

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

Personal Preferences:

• As I spend more time judging, I am developing somewhat higher standards for what constitutes a 'minimally viable argument' in the 2AC. For example, if the 2AR wants theory to be a viable option, the offense extended by the 1AR should be in the 2AC (or at least justified as new by the 1AR). I feel similarly about 'links to the net benefit' - this is often claimed, but not warranted by the 2AC.

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

• I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
• I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
• As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

I prefer plain language over specific debate terminology. I appreciate it when debaters respond line by line to arguments in the order they were presented. I value and weigh what is spoken and consider it above what I read.

I look forward to hearing your clear arguments and do not prefer spreading.

eldridgega@comcast.net

Alpharetta 22

Georgia Tech 26

Judging for Woodward

Email: gudapati.rahul@gmail.com

Online debate: I prefer that you keep your webcam on when you're speaking unless you have some extenuating circumstance that prevents you from doing so.

Feel free to post-round me. I think it's part of the job description. Ask any questions you want.

Jordan Di's Paradigm

^long paradigm that mostly matches my views

Short Version:

Straight-forward line by line wins you the debate

Clarity > Speed when spreading

I love Case debate - most cases suck, and the neg should be able to disassemble it. If the case is good, then the aff should be able to lean on it and leverage it against the DAs

Not a big fan of T unless it's a flagrant violation

I prefer utilitarian frameworks, but you can still

default to judge kicking the CP

Not a big fan of theory, but debate it well and you'll win

Not a fan of hiding arguments in docs (e.g. excluding condo from the speech doc and quickly reading it the second the AFF looks away) - you might win, but your speaks will be garbage

Not the greatest for the Kritik

Speaker Points:

I probably overinflate speaker points

how to get good speaks: be technical and make smart arguments---I especially like when people call out their opponents' evidence or make connections between different flows

scale for novices:

Below 27 – Something seriously wrong

27-28.3- decent foundation but you need to do some work

28.4-29- solid but you have room for improvement - average range

29.1 - 29.5 - Great debating, keep it up

29.5-30- Really smart debating, amazing work

+0.3 speaks if you show me a good flow at the end of the round – your handwriting can suck, I don’t care – I want to see that you have a good foundation - this works on a sliding scale so even if your flow is half decent, show me and I'll give you something

+0.2 for opensource---show me immediately after the round

­

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

• The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
• If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
• Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
• In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
• If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
• Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
• Speak as clearly as possible for you.
• Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

• DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
• CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
• K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
• T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
• Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
• Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

• If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
• I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
• I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
• Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
• I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
• If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
• You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
• Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

• Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
• 27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
• 28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
• 29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
• 29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
• 30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Alpharetta 21. Emory 25.

Email chain: hargunn.sandhu03@gmail.com

Note:

I have ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE. Explain acronyms and don't assume I know the limits/consensus on T.

General:

1. Tech > Truth. Better debating can easily overcome any of the preferences I have below. Judge instruction is key, especially in the final rebuttals.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong logical explanation, and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. Sending analytics might be useful in case internet cuts out. Try to keep your camera on at least during speeches and CX.

4. Racism, sexism, discrimination, or any other problematic actions will result in an L and the lowest speaks.

5. Clipping = L and lowest speaks. If you accuse someone of clipping you must have evidence, if you fail to prove they clipped then you get an L.

Specifics:

1. K:

a. K Affs: Clash > Fairness > Education/Skills. I'm more inclined to vote on t usfg/framework since I have mostly been on this side of the debate. Heg good, cap good, etc are all good 2nr options. However, I do think the aff can win with impact turns to the negative's model. Good K affs have a connection to the topic and a clear offense/defense mechanism in the 1AC.

b. Ks: Leaning towards aff gets to weigh the plan. Who cares if fiat isn't real. Specific links, pulling quotes from the 1AC, and in-depth explanation at every level are very important. Avoid large overviews. Turns case/root cause/alt solves > fw 2nrs. Extinction ow/impact turn > permutation 2ars.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Cool. If undebated, I'll judge kick the CP. I might be a little more receptive to intrinsic perms than most.

b. DAs: Turns case is crucial. Politics DAs are good, spin is important. 0% risk is a thing, but hard to get to.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. International CP and Ctrl + f word PICs are bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

4. T - Assuming even debating, competing interps > reasonability. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg, but especially the aff if there's a substantial limits differential. Read cards. Both sides should be clashing over their visions of the topic and the impacts to it.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Impact Turns are fantastic. Good case debating is underutilized. Presumption is possible.

6. Misc:

- Speaks: I'm prolly a little above average giving them out. Specific strategies are good. It always helps to make the round fun. Quality evidence is good. If you opensource, let me know, + .1

- Insert perm texts

- I'm usually not expressive, and anything I do express is usually not your fault.

- Things I prolly won't vote on: ASPEC, death good, and out of round issues

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE EXPLAIN ALL LINKS CLEARLY I WILL NOT DO THE DEBATING FOR YOU

add me to the email chain: ridahvs@gmail.com

THE SHORT:

I enjoy seeing clash in all debates. Please don’t read more off just so you can ‘skimp’ on answering the aff. If the aff isn’t answered well, then there’s no point in having more off. I WILL vote on the aff just bc it wasn’t answered well. That goes for the aff too. The off cases need to be answered well. Or I’m going to have to vote on presumption.

DO NOT DROP ARGUMENTS!!! On top of that GIVE A ROADMAP!! If you don’t, I’m going to flow it on wtv flow I think is best and it might not turn out so well for you. What I weigh is up to you. Tell me EXACTLY how to frame the debate. Although I have experience with debate, I WILL NOT FILL IN GAPS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS! If your args have enough holes in them to sink a ship, then they aren’t winning you anything.

I am fine with heated cross-ex as long as things don’t get out of hand. Remember to be professional and do EXACTLY what you’re supposed to.

AFF

do what u do. read the 1ac clearly, spreading is fine. answer all arguments. And explain why condo or any fiat is unfair and why that means I should vote for u. You can use analytics and reasoning to no link any off case.

OFF CASE:

K: I love seeing k’s, esp when they’re debated well. When they’re not… I’m very reluctant to vote on them. Make sure to explain the links and how the impact and the alt work/happen. You don’t need to win the alternative, if you win a link and FW and explain why this means I should vote on the k, that's sufficient, but the alternative provides another reason why voting k is a good idea. The winner of the ‘framework’ debate will be weighed first. I will ALWAYS weigh the aff first if the neg DOESN’T win framework.

CP: I LOVE a well debated CP and I’m all for voting on sufficiency framing if you tell me why. Planks cps must be debated very well + theory should be answered. DO NOT introduce multiple planks CPs. Two at most, any more than that is playing with fire.

T: Bc T is a theory arg, I will RARELY vote on T UNLESS it’s debated very well. And I mean VERY well. Do not just say the violation and move on, if you’re a T team then you need to spend a whole 5 min on T in the block.

DA: I’m fine with any DA but the DA needs to be proven to have an impx. Keeping a DA around just for the net benefit is not smthing I like.

I absolutely despise bad sportsmanship, take the L with pride. And take the W with dignity. No ragging, fighting, and/or barbed insults during or after the round. All debates should be CLEAN and educational. If there are any insults your speaks will be NONEXISTENT.

Dont call me judge, I WILL BARF. Anything but judge, it makes me sound like some 80 year old man. Also, make sure that you remember that we are all part of a debate community that strives to accomplish the same goal, and that losing just brings you one step closer to winning.

Carter King Midtown Paradigm:

My name is Brandon Tung. I'm a freshman at UIUC majoring in Psychology (no I don't psychoanalyze people, psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience until proven otherwise) with plans to focus in Clinical Psychology, as well as minor in EALC (East Asian Languages and Culture). I did pretty much every form of debate in high school (LD, PF, Policy) as a part of the Northview HS team, and was captain of the Public Forum section of the team for a year. I have not judged a debate round in over a year, maybe longer, but I will do my best to give you educational feedback and judge the round as fairly and unbiased as possible.

A couple of things you should know:

• If you're spreading, please send me your cards. I'd actually prefer if you went slower, but talk with a more concise and clear voice, even if you do miss a few points in your original constructive.
• Be polite. It's common etiquette, and if you don't treat others with respect, don't expect to be treated any better. I know being aggressive is a style of debate from first-hand experience, but there's a difference between aggressiveness and rudeness. I expect a handshake from everyone before and after a round unless you have a contagious disease, in which case I expect you to stay home.

• I will vote for rounds based off of who communicated the information to me in the most logical and persuasive way. Even if you have the best cards in the world, I will not vote for you if it isn't presented in a logical manner. Also, if you have any arguments that are remotely insulting i.e. racist, sexist, etc. I will stop the debate and ask you to leave, although I hope this will not happen.
• I think that CXs and Rebuttals are the most interesting part of debate, so value those over your Constructive.
• Don't take the debate too serious. I enjoy a good debate, but at the same time, if the atmosphere is too tense it makes me feel like I'm judging a court case, not a debate round. Granted, don't be too laid back, as I do expect some form of etiquette. If you add some jokes or make me laugh then I might give you an extra speak. However, if you try too hard to make a joke I'll probably take off a speak.
• If you bring me a protein shake (no nuts please) I'll give you an extra speak, but don't tell anyone.

(Note: Extra speaks does not mean I will vote for you. A team's performance within the round will be what actually counts, even if they have less speaks than the other team. )

Congratulations, you've made it to the end!

Here's a cat for your time.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⡷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⡿⠋⠈⠻⣮⣳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⣿⡿⠟⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⣤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣾⡿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠻⠿⣿⣶⣦⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⣀⣴⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣿⣷⣦⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣄⠀⠀
⢀⣤⣾⡿⠟⠛⠛⢿⣿⣶⣾⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣿⣷⣦⣀⣀⣤⣶⣿⡿⠿⢿⣿⡀⠀
⣿⣿⠏⠀⢰⡆⠀⠀⠉⢿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⡿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⢸⣿⠇⠀
⣿⡟⠀⣀⠈⣀⡀⠒⠃⠀⠙⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠇⠀
⣿⡇⠀⠛⢠⡋⢙⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀
⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠓⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠋⠀⠀⢸⣧⣤⣤⣶⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⡿⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠻⣷⣶⣶⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀
⠈⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⡄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⡄⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⡿⣄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣹
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣧
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⣿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢿⣻⣷⣶⣾⣿⣿⡿⢯⣛⣛⡋⠁⠀⠀⠉⠙⠛⠛⠿⣿⣿⡷⣶⣿