Econ Public Forum World Debate Tournament
2023 — Georgetown Washington DC, DC/US
PF Online judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello there, my name is Bukunmi Babatunde (she/her/hers)! I'm a student at the University of Ilorin right now. I am a regular debater with expertise in a variety of formats, including BP, PF, WSDC, and ETHICS.
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: I don't have any.
When you encounter me in a room, I hold you to a standard of fairness and proper engagement during discussion rounds.
I appreciate debaters who can check all of the boxes for good involvement, such as role fulfillment, engaging the burdens in the debate, and providing appropriate engagement to round confrontations.
Even if they don't agree with the framing or the argument, I strongly advise teams to engage the other party's case.
Unless you pinpoint which warrants they compare, examples/precedent/empirics do not clash. They're frequently misapplied, therefore it's important to consider where arguments go.
The point, warrants, and why you won should be the focus of your summaries. Don't try to resuscitate arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary as the final focus.
Finally, always make sure you follow all equity rules.
Please keep track of time because I will be doing the same.
Special considerations for virtual debate tournaments
Please keep your cameras on if at all feasible. It's entirely understandable if there are issues with wifi or connection.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your speeches are clear and intelligible. I prefer medium pace speed
I am the Tower Hill debate coach. I am also a lawyer, and have been since 1980. My practice has concentrated in civil litigation. I consider the preservation of effective and civilized debate to be one of the strongest guarantees of the survival of democracy. This requires that arguments be made forcefully, with conviction, based upon demonstrable evidence, and in accordance with the applicable rules. It matters to me whether debaters treat the process and their opponents with respect.
currently in high school
Pf debater for 4 years
Win on the flow but I still value logic arguments, good warranting without evidence will beat evidence without warranting
Relatively lay for an experienced debater but still a pretty flow judge overall.
in summary and ff say what you’re winning on and weigh it, make it as easy as possible for a judge to see what you have won and lost on and the impacts of those.
don’t love theory too much but I’ll still vote on it and weigh it. Don’t run some dumb theory though.
Have fun, debate is supposed to be fun :)
feel free to ask any questions at the beginning of the round if anything is unclear
I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to what you all have prepared!!
I have experience on every major circuit in the country in various events. I specialized in extemp, congress, and world schools, but I have experience in and an understanding of every event.
Speech and Debate are the antithesis of complacency, and I expect competitors to represent that by challenging and changing content and arguments throughout the year. Do not get comfortable with the normal. Challenge and change the status quo, and that starts with creativity.
TLDR: Tech>Truth but I have a much lower threshold for blatantly wrong statements.
If you have any questions or advice, simply ask me after the round or email me here: email@example.com
LD/CX: I am largely tech over argument, excluding certain situations. I am not opposed to any kritiques or technical arguments, but I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. I am a strong believer that complicated or convoluted arguments that are conveyed poorly are far worse than a simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly. I'm fairly well-read on philosophy, but if you are going to attempt arguments of that vein, you best be prepared to utilize that argument in a rational and pragmatic way.
PF: I want to hear strategic and planned responses that actually signpost where and what the judge and opponents need to pay attention to. Way too many PF rounds become messy, and both sides misconstruing arguments in good or bad faith. If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.
Congress: I have spent most of my debate career in congress and extemp, so I know what fluff is and what is real. I do NOT take kindly to excessive theatrics, a lack of clash, and a lack of real content. I also know when your speech is nothing but "rhetoric" versus actual points. I need to see proactive and unique points, especially creativity and risks. As for the PO, I need to see you stand out. All PO's are not created equal, and if you can have a hold over your chamber while being a charming or dynamic competitor, I will thank you and vote you highly. Take risks, don't let this event homogenize into people doing the same thing over and over again.
Extemporaneous Speaking: Performance and presentation matter, and they absolutely will reflect positively on your ranking. However, I see extemp as a mix between speaking and debate. I want to see the content, the link chain, the impact, and the warrants. Tell me why your topic matters, its effects past the direct "what the eye can see", and compare it. Use the skills of persuasion and informing and give me an argument. If you can do that and communicate your point effectively, you are absolutely going to rank highly with me.
World Schools: I absolutely give merit to the content and the arguments here. However, this event gives the opportunity to branch out and address arguments from a much more holistic and broader perspective. Take control of that opportunity. I give a lot of leeway here, but in the end this is world schools. All arguments are fair game for me.
Interp/OO/Info: I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the event, and view these events as more so to cater to your preferences than mine. Show me what you got!
hi, im srijani :)
yes to the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
I was on the local Minnesota and national circuits in LD for 4 years and now coach at Eden Prairie. I pretty much solely did traditional debate as I come from a small school with non-existent resources.
I enjoy traditional debate that involves well-developed arguments and genuine clash. I hate when it's two ships passing in the night. Impact analysis and weigh weigh weigh!!! Utilize your framework and always link back. Link into your opponent's framework as well. Tell me clearly WHY you win. Give me voters, worlds comparison, and crystalize. If you can write a clear ballot story for me, I'll be inclined to accept it. I debated at a very small school with non-existent resources. Reading from 4 min of pre-wrtitten prep isn't favorable in front of me and results in low speaks.
Note- just because you're reading a progressive case this doesn't give you the freedom to simply not interact with more traditional things like framework. Now, this doesn't mean you have to read counter framework yourself. Simply contesting the framework or cross applying your ROB is enough. If there is a framework debate that is where I'll always be starting my evaluation of the round.
DAs- I love them. Really no issue with anything just make sure you have a strong link chain and impact it out. Give me clear impact calculus and weigh!
Plan Affs/CPs- just make sure you have a proper plan text and net benefits. I have no issues with these.
T- T is fine, but only run it if you have a legitimate violation. For 1NR theory, counter-interps that the aff clearly links into are just a waste of time. On things like disclosure theory, I will always err on the side of not voting on it. I think disclosure/wiki violations are so abusive to small school debaters. Even if your opponent doesn't have a clear counter interp/standards, but are making arguments about accessiblity/small schools/fairness I'll always buy them. Don't ever read friv theory.
Phil- I don't know much phil lit myself, but if explained well enough for me to understand, I have no issue voting on it. Err on side of over-explaining.
K's- don't know much K lit. Probably most comfortable with set col and cap K. If explained well enough for me to understand, I have no issue voting on others. Err on side of over-explaining.
I like debaters who know how to utilize their cross to get confessions from their opponent. You have three minutes please use them wisely. Being aggressive in cross is awesome, but remember there's a fine line between aggressive and rude.
Speed and Prep
I'm good with speed. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but if you can't have clarity, don't read fast. There is a huge difference between debaters who can actually spread and debaters who just think they can. Don't steal prep and always tell me how much you have remaining.
At the end of the day, we debate because we have fun doing it so let's have a good time. Bring the energy and unique arguments!
Yes email chain: email@example.com Lay Judge
I'm a proud African pursuing a BSc. IBA with a diploma in psychology. As an open minded, free thinking individual, I find debates especially riveting. From time to time I participate in national and regional circuits though I prefer to be in the judges' seats exploring and absorbing the speakers claims.
My grading criteria is as defined;
1. Organization and clarity: The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. It is important not to lose your train of thought as this soon becomes lack of clarity. Use simple words and statements to get your points across. Big words sound clever but they can make you incomprehensible, lets keep it simple and clear.
2. Truth of claim : Are your points strong and persuasive? You must justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of “proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it a convincing argument.
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal: Identify weakness in the competing team’s arguments and be able to bullet proof your own claim. Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. There may be misinterpretations or the points may also be unimportant or irrelevant. Teammates may also contradict one another or fail to complete the tasks they set themselves. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects if one has proper grasp of the other team's perspective.
4. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. Some debaters develop an excessively rapid style of delivery that interferes with the element of communication that is basic to debate. All features of presentation must be used convincingly.
5. Team dynamic and respect : "Manners maketh man". In the spirit of debate, we must ensure we refrain from use of derogatory or discriminatory terms, statements or arguments. Profanity and vulgar words only reveal the team's weakness in argument. Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word that is good for edification according to the need of the moment.
Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.
Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.
As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, which in most instances choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.
I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.
I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.
I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.
Background for Bill Lemonovich
Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory
I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.
High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.
I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.
Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms
~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !
~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !
~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !
~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing
~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'
~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a
'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?
Background:I am from Africa.Currently residing in Seattle and i have been judging and training for the past one and a half years .I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Economics and Finance as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating ,eating and traveling.
1.Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which , in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate
2.Mechanizations. It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate, So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining what's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having you claim tag along with mechanization.
3.Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing you can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people ,long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.
4.Structure.It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes us easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow( carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.
5.Synergy:How you and your partner build your case is important. This is dine by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner.Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speeches.
I am a past debater (Parliamentary, not Public Forum), and current debate coach. I judge based off of what I see on the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions on what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know into my judging.
I will be looking for clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I want to see how your side of the ballot is going to best solve for the problems proposed, and have the strongest real world implications. I also want to see effective weighing.
I can take notes somewhat fast, but if you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. Do with that what you will.
My name is Lillian Myers (they/them) new at judging, but I was the team captain of the Oregon City High School speech and debate team in 2019-2020 and I was a 2020 National Tournament Qualifier in Congress. I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, Radio Commentary, Informative, Prose, Programmed Oral Interpretation, and Extemporaneous. Currently, I'm a sophomore at Simmons University as a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Africana Studies double major.
My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.
In debate events I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.
Clarity is of utmost importance to me. I will not tolerate spreading of any kind, you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity. Because of my disability please do not spread. I don't want to have to mark you down for this, so please don't spread during my rounds.
I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that said, I am not a fan of kritiks or debate theory. If you do choose to use them, do not stray too far from the resolution. I would rather you spend more time on your case and addressing the resolution than trying to stray from the topic or argue about the debate itself.
Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.
Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.
If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.
*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.
1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.
2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.
3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.
4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.
5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.
6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.
7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.
8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).
My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/they). I am a student at the University of Ilorin. I am a regular debater with vast speaking and judging experience. I have gathered ample experience judging different debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), and Ethics Olympiad.
Email address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: I do not have any.
When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements.
I appreciate debaters that check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.
It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.
Your summary speeches should focus on highlighting the points, warrants and logical impacts that wins you the debate.
Your final focus should only encompass arguments that have been mentioned previously in the debate.
To restate, please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.
Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.
Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:
Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.
I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.
I am an enthusiastic and open minded individual who has been judging for two years and I love debating .I studied Information Technology and spend most of my time coding .The metrics I mostly use when judging are:
The claim a team provides must contain strong evidence and should explain what the debate is about. The second proof of claim is responding to a rebuttals provided by your opponents. This is important since they can argue a link of truth that might discredit the points given. In the end, it can cost your impacts to be disregarded and reduces your chances of winning the debate.
It is important for you to give good reasoning on why your claim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is true and important in the debate. The more well-proofed the evidence is , the higher chances of you winning the argument. The claim should also be within reasoning and proven.
Take your opponent's best case and make a comparison to the case provided from the bench .You'll have earned a solid win if you can show me that even if your side's best case fails, your average or worst scenario is still much better than your opponent's case. This is also done through providing strong reasons supported by clear pieces of evidence . Prove to us why you believe the arguments provided by your opponents is unlikely the case and why its also false.
It is important to lay out a structure in a simple and direct format that is easy for me to understand .You can also do this by showing me your breakdown before you begin your speech. Having a simple structure with in -depth analysis makes it easy for me to judge and helps your opponents understand your arguments. Having a coherent speech with logical flow makes it easy to understand your speech word for word.
How you and your partner present yourself is also quite important .I will need strong well-structured points to strengthen the cases presented. Having your teammate support your arguments or defend the points initially made is very important and it will be an add-on during weigh-in.
Lastly, it is very important to respect your opponents during debates. Avoid using obscene or rude remarks during the debate. I encourage you to have fun and be as creative as you can when interacting with different people in the debate forums.
Background: I have been judging and training for the past three and a half years. I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Computer Science as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating, eating, and traveling.
1. Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which, in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate.
2. Mechanizations: It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counterclaim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate. So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining why it's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having your claim tag along with mechanization.
3. Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing You can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people, has long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.
4. Structure: It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having a clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes it easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow (carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.
5. Synergy: How you and your partner build your case is important. This is done by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner. Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speech.
Lastly, respect your opponents. During the debate, do not use any derogatory or insulting language. I encourage you to use your imagination and have fun while learning and engaging with new individuals in the world of debate. Best wishes!
I am an enthusiastic and open minded individual who has been judging the past two years and I love debating. I studied Economics and Finance for my undergraduate and spend most of my time reading novels, debating, writing and traveling. The metrics I mostly use when judging are:
The claim a team provides must contain strong evidence and should explain what the debate is about. The second proof of claim is responding to the rebuttals provided by your opponents. This is important since they can argue a link of truth that might discredit the points given. In the end, it can cost your impacts to be disregarded and reduces your chances of winning the debate.
It is important for you to give good reasoning on why your claim is true. This is done by showing why or how your claim is true and important in the debate. The more well-proofed the evidence is, the higher chances of you have winning the argument. The claim should also within reasoning and proven.
Take your opponent's best case and make a comparison to the case provided from your bench. You'll have earned a solid win if you can show me that even if your side's best case fails, your average or worst case scenario is still much better than your opponent's case. This is also done through providing strong reasons supported by clear pieces of evidence. Prove to us why you believe the arguments provided by your opponents is unlikely the case and why its also false.
It is important to lay out a structure in a simple and direct format that is easy for me to understand. You can also do this by showing me your breakdown before you begin your speech. Having a simple structure with in-depth analysis makes it easy for me to judge and helps your opponents understand your arguments. Having a coherent speech with logical flow makes it easy for me to understand your speech word for word.
How you and your partner present yourself is also quite important. I will need strong well-structured points to strengthen the cases presented. Having your teammate support your arguments or defend the points initially made is very important and it will be an add-on during weigh-in.
Lastly, it is very important to respect your opponents during debates. Avoid using obscene or rude remarks during the debate. I encourage you to have fun and be as creative as you can when interacting with different people in the debate forums.
3 years pf experience on the nat circuit
email@example.com for the chain
tech > truth
signposting. I cannot stress how important this is. Often times i lose flow coverage cus ur going back and forth and im extremely confused as to where i should be flowing, and if ur giving me an offtime roadmap, actually stick to it
if u dont weigh then ??? (i love metaweighing)
Actual impact calc is very very important to me. Everybody dies ≠ biggest impact
frontline in 2nd rebuttal
Run theory or ks if u want. Prog args throw me off but im willing to vote off them
Absolutely no disclo theory, i think its stupid and will drop u for reading it. Sad that it's the new norm
I dont flow card names so pls dont just extend the author w/o telling me what they say
Warrants are very important
I probably dont have topic knowledge at all so dont expect me to know terminology
make me laugh and i'll prob give you good speaks. I start from 28.5 and work my way around that. If you get a under a 27 from me then that's embarrassing. Have fun!