Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Affiliated with George C. Marshall High School

Occasional LD judge;

Speak at a normal rate. No Spreading

A firm tie to the resolution is required. The traditional value is what will determine the winner of the round.

Value and value criterion are expected.

No counter plan or kritiks

Strong content and delivery are important when I decide the winner.

Rising senior at Lambert

Tech > Truth unless you’re being ridiculous, eg telling me that China’s leader is secretly Reagan

Don’t be a bad person or your speaker points will be the lowest I can give

I was never that good at debate and it’s been a while since then so don’t count on me following your argument dumps at 400 wpm but you can reasonably assume that I will accurately flow most things, including prog (theory, Ks, etc.

Nothing new unless responsive, don’t neglect proper weighing or you’ll probably lose

Humor and jokes are also great when appropriate, but don't go from something like terrorism to a pun please.

LD Paradigm

I emphasize fw a lot, but will vote off of impacts.

Do impact calc (probability, timeframe, magnitude)

If you run plan affs, I'll be mad and dock speaks, but go ahead lol

Prefer disclosure

Spread all u want, but send me the docs. If you spread badly I'll dock speaks. Nobody likes incomprehensible spreading.

Drown your speech in theory shells for all I care. Please make sure I understand them though cuz theory i dont understand makes me cry.

TIP: Sound like your opponent committed a war crime, and I'm more likely to buy it than just reading the shell in a monotone voice.

I do prefer empirical evidence over philosophy unless it's something like Baudrillard where you target the mindset.

It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.

You can be as abusive as you want in arguments and observations. Fair warning, you might hit a few theory shells. I don't like plan affs, and will lower speaks, but you can run it.

No new args in the 2nr/2ar, please (common sense)

I will time, and when the timer goes off I’ll stop flowing so you talking longer than 10 seconds over serves no strategic purpose.

I am tech > truth and am a (mostly) tabula rasa judge

1. Theory

1.5 Trix (Read curry's paradox i love it ngl)

2. Larp and non-identity k

3. standard case

3.5 pomo phil

4. common Phil (kant, rawls, locke)

5. Identity arguments

Speaks

I think the method of giving speaks based on how far I'll think you'll go in the tourney is pretty dumb - however, higher speaks probably mean you're more likely to get to Elim rounds. Anyway, this is how I view speaks:

27: It was really bad/I couldn't understand you

28: It was ok/could be a lot better

29: It was decent/not bad/a little improvement but not terrible

30: Pretty good/good clash/impact calc

Credit to Venkata Yenuganti For the paradigm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MSDP Paradigm:If you ended up scrolling down to my paradigm here's how you get some free speaks as a reward:

1. Make a video game reference or do something funny and I'll bump your speaks. Or make jokes, idrc. Meme cases might probably not get a ballot from me (it sometimes has though).

Please give POI's and heckles. They make the debate so much more fun.

I don’t have any preferences when it comes to plans so do whatever makes you comfortable and debate best.

Hello there, my name is Akhil Nadithe (he/him). I am extremely familiar with PF, LD, poetry and Extemporaneous speaking. I am familiar with WSD, BQ, and most types of interp.

Email address: ask for email address in round.

First and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, ableist, exclusionary or discriminatory in any way.If you are, I will drop you

Paradigms are TLDR so here are some bullet points

Tech>Truth

I love trix+meme cases (Debate is supposed to be fun)

Pls send me both cases and I would also like to see asked for cards aswell

DON'T SPREAD, I will stop flowing.

Please tell me what you think my RFD should be in the last speech.

I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on something that happened in cross, bring it up in the next speech.

Second rebuttal must frontline turns.

Extend links, warrants, and impacts.

Have fun

I'm Gerson Oviedo Soto, a 20-year-old college student from Lima University and I've been interested/involved in judging Speech and Debate since I started my career as a debater (2 years and a half ago) and specially focused on BP and WSDC tournaments to provide all the feedback I can to school students in strategy, style and to remain motivated to continue participating in these wonderful sports that give us a unique opportunity to raise our voices around all the world, to all the circuits, even the LatAm circuit which I come from.

What I'm looking for in a debate:

Under any condition I'll let students attack or discriminate others and I'll reach to an equity officer as soon as possible, it's truly important to maintain the order and respect all the time, we all can win a debate and continue the discussion free of anger, with no reason to attack the person instead of the argument. Equity is important to learn, not to punish, no one should ever fear to talk to the Equity team, so in case someone has to approach to Equity or talk to them, is not to penalize your behavior, but instead to improve it and avoid it as well.

I am very unwilling to accept or believe in an argument that contains misogynistic, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or any other kind of premises that threaten the integrity of people's protected identity or attributes. For me, such arguments tend to be very unpersuasive.

Speaking fast is okay, but please ensure that it does not reach to the point of being completely unintelligible, not because I'm going to give you an automatic loss, but instead I'm going to be uncapable of taking notes and that means nuances or some explanations might be missed.

Style is considered important, although I do believe that the most valuable part of an speech is the argument and its content, so for me the style is not a criteria to define a winning team/speaker, I take style as an implicit benefit to demonstrate an argument.

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time, so I can prioritize taking notes.

Please add me to the email chain: rpatel135798642@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:

LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit

I mostly judge to help out tournaments/schools with judging because I want tournaments to have more flow judges who know the events rather than parents

NOVICES!!

Stop reading my paradigm (read this section but nothing below)!!! I don't want my paradigm to influence the way you debate. I suggest you don't read it because it will get you confused. Just debate how your coach taught you and I will follow. As a novice, your #1 job is to have fun debating and enjoy your experience. After the round ask me as many questions as you would like and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability with my prior debate knowledge.

Just remember what you practiced and what your coach taught you, no matter win or lose it is great that you are here!

In novice rounds, I will never vote off theory unless it is absolutely egregious/abusive (if you don't know what this means forget I said it).

Scroll down for other events

CX
shortcut:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused, T debate is what got my partner and I to our first nats)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

Paradigm:

The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic.Overall I'm tab, I will weigh any kind of argument (Cap good/bad, death good/bad, all that stuff) I'm not picky just make it make sense. The debates I hate judging the most are the debates where nothing is clear and I'm throwing a dart blindfolded for my ballot.

I see condo as an excuse for teams not doing speed drills (just get good)

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad ----------x- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down and make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics.

If you want me to vote for T or theory it needs to make up at least 2 minutes of the final speech (2nr or 2ar). If you don't cover it at least that much it the arg has to be so convincing that I feel bad for you about the round.

Most of my cx comes from Aman Chaudhary, Issac Chao, and Valentin Jimenez, they taught me debate so go read their paradigm to find out more about me (good pf and ld cuz he is basically my only basis for those)

LD

I know a bit about the debate, if you are prog please run prog its what I will fully understand coming from CX. Other than that I really want to see a good debate between battling frameworks and values. I think the whole trad LD debate saying "My value is this... My value criterion is this" is overplayed. Just tell me why you win under a fw idc what you value who you value or how you achieve your value. Just outweigh the fw debate and prove you are right and you have my ballot.

I'm cool with DA, CP, and most K's (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

Overall, my ballot is pretty easy to get in LD just don't be basic and be offensive, win FW and outweigh.

PF

I really don't understand this event. I will try to vote as best as I can. I would judge it as a lay CX round about who outweighs the topic. Just be persuasive and make good args and you will be fine. I am very sorry if I jf you. :)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time.

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit

Introduction

Name: Rishit Pradhan

Email: pradhanrishit@gmail.com

School: Stockdale '23

Top Level Thoughts (Read this if u want to win)

I think in terms of adaptation the stylistic preference of the judge comes prior to the stylistic preference of the event. So I’ll buy most args that aren’t problematic.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Philip McCrocc '21

IF YOUR OPPONENTS DO NOT DISCLOSE AND YOU READ A SHELL AUTO 80 W TKO (including worlds) (Perf Con is fine)

Notable achievements: 0-7 at Silver TOC, 2-2 at TOC China Chengdu Regional, 0-6 at Western Ohio district tournament

If you email natelaude915@gmail.com and bcc jsh27335@gmail.com "yeah I love guitar major ????" auto 80s

Hi, I am a parent judge with little to no experience. Please no spreading or reductio ad absurdum whatsoever.

我是一个家长裁判，不要讲很快。

Thank you for engaging in this important exercise and seeking to think critically about issues we face.The world needs smart, capable, analytical minds more than ever and I look forward to seeing your talents on display as a debate judge.

I am usually not a person you can bother very easily, but when you ask less than 10 POIs, that show me you aren't engaging in activity. ????‍♀️ ???? ????‍♂️

Looking at my tab data, I have clicked the button for the affirmative 90% of the time, because the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus philosophy tells me to be positive, so i try not to negate.

With that being said, I am often persuade by certain negation arguments like "tricks" and the "the good samritan paradox", and "presume negation reasons".

I also enjoy Kritiks that are not related to the topic, such as "杀死开心“

With that being said, as a former avid big questions debater representing the national Mongolia forensics society, I picked up a couple of norms that I'd like to see in today's round:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add me to the email chain: jsh27335@gmail.com

Theory = 80's

Non T K = 80's

T K's = 79's

Tricks = 80's

Substance = probably like 27, don't read substance pls, #uneducational #unbased

Hi, I debated at Phillip McCrocc for 4 years in PF. I was a pretty mid debater who cut no cards and my second speaker carried me (@JesusLupita) so don't expect god tier decision!

If I'm judging on a panel with 2 other lay judges, I will legit judge like a lay judge and vote for who was more persuasive/lay because I think thats the most fair (cough cough haha funny TOC 2022 octos cool moment), I can tell who's the better lay debater dw

Important stuff

For speaks I'll usually give around 27 or 28's. If you're funny or run cool (and stupid) arguments I'll go up from there.

If you spam a bunch of cards in rebuttal, good luck winning the ballot. Strike me if you debate like that pls (or don't so I can down you :) )

Poking fun at your opponents during speeches can be very funny and persuasive (don't be legitimately mean though, you know what I'm taking about)

Trigger warnings AND opt outs are MANDATORY, if you read a potentially triggering subject and don't read an opt out you're getting L25's regardless of if they read theory or not

I hate tech extremists, particularly those who target the gdp of mongolia. if you read any arguments pertaining to the annihilation of mongolia, expect me to be a gremlin about it.

TLDR-I'll vote on literally anything. Don't spread, don't card dump, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, fun/cool weighing is prioritized, I LOVE fun arguments (economic growth bad, escape to mars, some random link chain into extinction that doesn't make a lot of sense, you get the point), make the round enjoyable and you'll get 30's and a higher chance of winning. Don't be afraid to go for turns (IF THEY'RE IMPLICATED AND EXPLAINED).

Tech > Truth 100% of the time. If the round has like 0 offense in the round and no side tells me why I should default neg/aff, I'll vote for whoever was funnier in crossfire.

------------------------------------------------------------WINTER WORLDS UPDATE----------------------------------------------------------------

For Theory:

• Disclosure is good (open source only)
• Paraphrasing is bad
• Card clipping is bad
• Trigger warnings are good
• Anonymous opt outs are good
• Dates theory based
• T is very based
• Friv theory funny (and ill evaluate it fairly)

CI > Reasonability EVERY TIME- if you don't read a CI I'm downing you

RVI's good is probably true but I'll evaluate both sides fairly

Those are my personal opinions so if I'm 50/50 on a theory round, I'll vote for my believes

Otherwise, I'll just the round fairly. If you win that para is good or that disclosure is bad, I'll begrudgingly vote for you.

For K's

• Disruption > discourse x400000
• Word PIC's (pf versions of them) are good
• Good chances that I'll hack for a Set Col K (any type of K's are fine tho)
• If you're good at reading a K, I'll give you a 30, but if you read a K poorly I'm gonna yeet ur speaks

Constructive: DO NOT GO FAST. I will tank your speaks if your case is over 800 words. (im not kidding I will give you 25's and I won't feel bad about it, this includes shells and topical K's). Going slow will make the round more bearable for everyone. If you run an argument that I think is "funny/cool" you'll probably get 30's. Just make good cases and frontline them well then weigh, don't read 3/4 contentions and prep spam your opponents out of the round. That takes all the real world applicable skills out of debate and further skews the advantages towards larger schools who can afford to have a massive amount of prep.

Rebuttal: DO NOT GO FAST. I will tank your speaks. If you dump like 40 responses on their case I'm gonna give you some pretty bad speaks too, give me some good logical responses please. Don't read blippy stuff, warrant your responses well and make good implications. Reading something blippy and then giving the warranting in the summary and saying "they didn't respond to ___" is not going to cut it. Put the warranting in rebuttal or I won't really evaluate it.

Good analytics > Cards 100% of the time, but good analytics + card > good analytics almost all of the time.

IF YOU ARE SECOND SPEAKING YOU HAVE TO FRONTLINE EVERYTHING (you can concede delinks and kick out of arguments but if you wanna go for something, frontline it completely.... I don't want any of that east coast bs)

ALL defense/turns that aren't frontlined in rebuttal are 100% conceded, don't try to respond in second summary cause I won't flow it.

Summary: DO NOT GO FAST. Defense is sticky if it wasn't responded to. Your extension should be thorough, you have 3 minutes so I don't want a lackluster extension of case. "EXTEND JOHN 18" is not an extension, I don't extend authors I extend arguments, so do that pls. Weighing is really important. Really Really Really important pls do it...

Final: DO NOT GO FAST. Most of your final should be weighing. I want a wholistic view of the round, line by line finals are fine ig but I'd rather you tell me why exactly you're winning the round. Your mission should be to make me do as little work as possible. I don't wanna go through the flow for 15 minutes and make a decision, walk me step by step through why I should vote for you.

On weighing: weighing that has to do with the actual arguments themselves will always come before "oh ours is bigger". I'll evaluate scope/timeframe/magnitude/etc weighing mechs, but if your weighing makes me go "that was smart/cool", I'll probably vote for you.

Random stuff:
If I hear you say " they conceded ____" or "they didn't respond to ___" when they clearly did, you're probably getting a 27. That gets on my nerves so much.

Be funny in crossfire and during speeches, I'll be way more likely to vote for you and give you higher speaks if you're funny.

Don't read struc-vi framing if you're ignorant and don't know what you're talking about

Don't commodify issues with your fake K's, if you don't believe in what you're running, don't run it pls

Don't be a bad person (racist, sexist, etc.)

Make a GOOD Kanye reference and you'll get 30 speaks. (one for each partner, don't make the same reference that's lame)

Funny contention names give +.3 speaks

Please do not read identity based arguments if you don't identify with those groups...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lately, I have not received my flowers from the debate community for my exemplary judging. As a result, I will be starting the All-Con Panel. All-Con Panel distinctions will be given to the best judges throughout the debate community. This year, I will be determining the honorees. In the future, we should have more voters in the pool. Now to the good stuff.

It is with great honor I would like to present the 2022 All-Con Panels.

First Panel

Me (obvi)

Ivan Nie [REDACTED]

Nathan Laude (he lives on tabroom.com)

Second Panel

Kevin Li [REDACTED]

Daniel Guo (judging while lowkey tiktok famous)

Ivan Nie (explained above)

Honorable Mentions (in the future this might be Third Panel)

Charlie Yang (voter fatigue)

Jason Zhang (most sits)

Jesus Lara (voter bias)

Victoria Kruger (prime baddie [ik ur out there])

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in my day, I beat Jaylon Ma (one of the best debaters of my generation) three times in a row. I'm serious business, kid.

^^^^^^

Hello debate community,

I am sorry for my unbecoming comments posted above. Debaters should never gloat over victories. The truth is Jaylon Ma has always been a sore spot for me. Jaylon ended my middle school debate career on a 2-1 decision at the Middle School national tournament. Seriously, I cried for two hours. My young heart was broken and my dreams shattered. Jaylon, I would like to extend a public apology for my rude comments posted above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some rounds I am the best judge at the tournament (rarely) sometimes I am the worst (often). hahahha kiddinngg or am I?

I do judge a lot, so I can usually give a rfd that would bring a tear to the eye of Shakespeare's modern reincarnation. This tear would christen their greatest most profound literature bending-binding-changing work, but I am not too special.

I have limited experience in LD though i've competed in traditional formats of it. Throughout High School my main event was Worlds School Debate, so do with that what you will. 

I enjoy clash more than anything. Clearly outline to me the arguments you are winning and the arguments that it engages with. I don't like doing the guesswork for competitors, leave nothing up to interpretation! I am not much of an 'intervention' judge so I will judge solely based on what happens in the round and which arguments are dropped/extended UNLESS both sides don't provide a clear path to ballot, then ill intervene ;)

Be nice to each other. dont be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic. that would suck and i'll def dock you for that. also, i am not super great at flowing spreading, so maybe keep it a bit slow for me. also, i value logic and analysis over random cards. 

have fun, my pronouns are they/them :)

Hi! I’m Hannah Tuttle. I reside in Boca Raton, Florida, and have been active in NSDA for four years now. Now that we have that aside, I’d like to cover my general rules and specific advice for events.

Generally, I greatly appreciate being called by she/her pronouns. You may refer to me as Hannah, Ms. Tuttle, ma’am, Judge, whatever works for you as long as it is correctly gendered. If you have specific pronouns you would like to be called by, please inform me and your opponents before you begin speaking (when you spell your name, for example). You are more than welcome to wear cultural formal clothes or affordable clothes if this makes debate more accessible to you- it will not be held against you. Similarly, for all my ladies and skirt-wearers out there, I will not judge the height of your heels, length of your skirt, style of makeup, or hair as long as it is not blatantly showing anything I should not see. Please always be courteous to your opposition and avoid speaking over the other side too much. This is a red flag to me and can result in the deduction of points.

In Public Forum, I prefer quality and well defended arguments over having a large number of arguments. Having four or five contentions only works if you have adequate time to support all of those arguments and explain their relevancy to the overall point. I side with whichever side is more impactful, not whichever side speaks the fastest or fits the most words in. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you, so speak audibly and with proper diction. I do check your sources and I do side with arguments that use less biased sources, so try to keep it truly informative and not opinionated whenever possible. Avoid talking over the other side in cross ex unless truly necessary. Finally, avoid picking niche topics that are so obscure the other side can barely fight them. They’re usually less impactful arguments with less relevancy and they come off as just trying to outsmart the other side through technicalities rather than solid practice.

In Congress, I tend to judge on the content and the performance. Congress is a mix of facts and rhetoric. I prefer speakers who can deliver clever and well thought-out speeches with proper sources and decent presentation. I myself move around a lot while speaking, so I don’t tend to care about your movements as long as you are able to speak with a good flow. Please introduce yourself and spell your name clearly (and include pronouns if you’d like) so I can refer to you properly. Keep cross ex as succinct as possible as answering a variety of questions can really boost your argument. Be active in asking questions as an audience member.

Don’t forget to have fun!! Debate is a beautiful art form and I love participating. I’m always here to support you if you have any questions. We’ve all been novices at some point. :)

Looking forward to seeing you compete!

Hello, my name is Chibueze Oscar Uzoigwe (he/him) , I am a public speaker and a debater with years of experience in British parliamentary debate (BP), Public Forum(PF) and World school debating championships (WSDC). I look forward to experiencing other debating formats to sharpen my mind and intellect.

Email address: oscaruzoigwe72@gmail.com

Conflict : i do not have any.

Personal Note :

I have an anticipation that all participants engage respectfully, politely thoughtfully and in accordance to the guidelines laid out in the judging and speaking manuals.

Eloquence, Organization, and substantial content are some of my key expectations from a debater.

Hey!

My name is Agezeh Victor (He/Him). I am a student at the University of ilorin, Nigeria. I am a debater with judging and speaking skills in British Parliamentary debating style (BP), World school Debating Championship (WSDC), Public Forum (PF) and Asian Parliamentary (AP)

Conflict: None

Email: agezehvictor2@gmail.com

As a judge, I appreciate when speakers engages the burden of an argument and also attack the argument as it relates to the debate, speaking in a manner that allows your point be understood and not missed.

Also, I expect every individual with debating interest to read the judging and speaking manual so as to know the rules and also to know what is expected of them in each motion.

Furthermore, speaking isn't just about the eloquence of the speech but also about point engagement and burden fulfilment.

Time keeping is very crucial and everyone should keep to time.

Since it an online tournament, ensure to mute you mic when it not your turn to speak and un-mute when it is yours, do not interrupt others when they speak.

I don't appreciate (but will not dock) off-time road maps, kritiks, theory, and jargon.

My students have had a 100% success rate into entering USA Debate (currently occupying 3 of 31 spots). I used to travel around the world debating and winning (back when tournaments were only in-person). I am a coach at AlannahDebates.Com . I have judged finals for multiple tournaments. I would prefer it if you treated me like a lay judge.

WORLD SCHOOLS JUDGING

https://www.debating.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/NZ-Schools-Debating-How-to-Judge-Guide.pdf

PARLIAMENTARY JUDGING

https://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/judging.html

If you are going to go Max Verstappen, I can effectively flow up to 350 WPM.

INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER SCORE

Content (40%): Depends on how many lines of flow I make for your speech. I don't flow any ineffective points.

Style (40%): Besides the linked WSD guide's description, I enjoy non-equity-violation jabs and jokes. Eg. saying your opponent's argument is as clear as your future is okay, saying your opponent's skin is as clear as your future is bad!

Strat (20%): Primarily how well you time/portion yourself. Any strategic actions such as consistent/effective POIs, not contradicting your teammate, strong framework, consideration to burden.