Hi,

Background:

I debated for the City University of New York (CUNY) from 2011 - 2015, running mostly kritikal arguments. Been infrequent in the college debate scene since then so (hopefully) I am not exactly the same person I was when I was a debater.

Paradigm:

Naturally, I will give more credence to kritikal arguments than the average judge but truly I am fairly middle of the road. Particularly, I think a lot of kritikal debate lacks any level of pragmatism, which is problematic.

Overall, feel free to run whatever are your best arguments in front of me and I will try my very best to judge based on what was said inside the round / on my flow. I truly try to let the debaters in front of me guide the debate and will look for you to tell me what barometer to use in evaluating the arguments presented.

Logistical matters:

- Prep ends when the USB comes out of the computer / email is sent.

- I don't want to be on your email chain. I will tell you to clear up if I am not giving your evidence their due on my flow.

- It's preferable if you time yourselves and just be honest.

- Things that are not cool include but are not limited to:

-> Flashing a ton of evidence and skipping around. Please re-flash only the cards you read, preferably in the order you read them, after your speech.

-> Stealing prep.

-> Being super late to rounds.

Thanks,

Abdullah

Thanks for taking the time to read this paradigm, as well as all of the other paradigms you're probably reading right now too, so let us begin, shall we?

I am a graduate of East Side High School (class of 2012) and I have been debating for four years while I was at East Side High School. I did policy debate for three years and then I did Lincoln-Douglass debate in my last year of high school because I had a lot of partner issues. I have graduated from Essex County College with my Associate's Degree in Liberal Arts (2020) and I will be attending Kean University to pursue my Bachelor's Degree in History (also in tandem with a K-12 certification) in the Spring 2023 semester; which begins in mid-January.

For Novice Debaters

-Please keep your speeches concise and organized as you make your arguments throughout the round.

-Always make sure to flow during EVERY speech and I would also suggest that you prepare your cross-ex questions in advance, prior to the cross-examination proper.

-Please be mindful of any details you may come across during the round so even if you have to ask a question while you're using your prep time (AKA "flex prep"), ask ONLY for clarification and nothing more. 

Akin to playing fighting games, sticking to the fundamentals will never steer you wrong, so as long as you know how to execute, when to execute, where to execute, and follow through. 

-give me a road map (the order of the speech) and make sure to signpost during the speech as well

-I'm ok with speed reading so as long as you are clear and concise with your arguments and how you present them to me. If you can't, then that's also fine, because debate as an activity, is all about being an effective communicator, regardless of your pace. Also, if you have time at the end of your speech, try to include a summary of the arguments you presented (AKA an under-view) so I as the judge can have a clear picture of how your arguments will not only interact with your opponent's arguments but also how your arguments can dismantle the logical appeal of said arguments and WHY I, the judge should vote for you.

As for the rest of this paradigm, here are my other preferences (for JV/Varsity Debaters)

-I ABHOR THEORY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED in bad faith! To clarify, when a theory argument is used to not check potential or in-round abuse, and instead is used to garner offense without context specific to the debate, it indicates to me as a judge that you're trying to circumvent the discussion instead of actually engaging the arguments being presented in the round. As a debater, you need to pay attention to how it is being deployed in the round and discern if the argument is being used in good faith or not. If not, then respond to it with direct clash and warrants to back it up.

-Topicality is another argument that I don't like but I don't totally dislike as well. Like theory, the situation has to present itself in a way that will be smart for you to run the argument. So as long as you don't drop it and try to bring it back in the later speeches for a cheap win, I will evaluate it. I do evaluate the K of topicality as well so as long as you can explain how the K of Topicality addresses topicality as a concept and why it is bad for the round. However, you still need to answer the shell thoroughly with a counter-interpretation, definition, or even if you can't, concede to their framework and use it as means to dismantle the credibility of the argument itself Arguments that you run analytically will have to have some sort of warrant or empirical evidence in order for me to truly evaluate it.

-I'm totally fine with the staple arguments (i.e. CP's and DA's). And for CP's specifically, if you're running a PIC, I'd really appreciate an overview of the pic for the sake of clarity and why the PIC is uniquely beneficial for the neg, and why a permutation would make them extra topical.

Side Note: if you plan on kicking out of any of these types of arguments, make sure to "close the door" on them appropriately so the aff doesn't gain access to any offense on those flows. By "closing the door" I refer to making the argument that explains why the idea was conditional and explaining how and why the aff ought to not gain any access to the offense they've made on those arguments by pointing out how in the neg and aff world the aff arguments wouldn't function as solvency but rather as a solvency deficit to the 1AC on those particular flows.

-Kritiks to be honest, are one of my favorite off-case arguments so as long as you know how to run it correctly. When it comes to certain kritiks that I've never heard, or really don't get, I'd appreciate it if you can give a quick explanation of how the kritik functions in the neg world if you have any time left over in your speech. When it comes to critical affs, explain how racism or other "isms" functions through a specific or myriad of social institutions functions to oppress "x" marginalized group(s) of people the 1NC claim to solve for in the kritik.

-If the aff doesn't address the K thoroughly with a permutation argument or impact turns the K, make it your priority to extend it throughout the debate. Don't let them get away with defensive/non-answer-Esque arguments that don't address the core issues the K intends to solve. However, if they do go for a permutation argument and they don't explain how and why the permutation is uniquely better than the alternative, explain why their permutation argument can't and shouldn't work, and why it is a reason I should prefer the alternative.

-when it comes to frame-work, I evaluate it in the round as the clearly established bright line that both teams ought to adhere to, purely on a mechanical level. If one team establishes the framework as the guiding point of the discussion but fails to use it as a weighing mechanism to give me an idea of how the round is supposed to play out then there's really nothing else for me to see on a macro level.

-Essentially, if it doesn't meet the bright line, they'll functionally concede to it without an explanation as to how and why they'll meet that bright line better than you. However, if the bright line is upheld and extended throughout the round as the prerequisite/starting point to whatever discussion needs to be had then I will evaluate it as the argument. By the way, I also prefer framework arguments that promote an idea that is able to be utilized in the most holistic way possible. I'm also fine with Policy Option framework arguments as well, as long as they're explained in a way that promotes practicality in terms of putting forward a systemic solution along with using it as a starting point for a discussion.

-during Cross Examination, do not stick to just one question and expect to get a different answer. If they don't answer the first time around go to the next one, and the next one and get them to concede to your side of the debate because that is what cross-ex is for and that is how it should be utilized. And please, DO NOT GO ON A RANT when you're the one asking questions. Just keep the questions concise and rapid, three minutes can go by like nothing so please use those three minutes wisely. Additionally, BODY LANGUAGE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND DURING CROSS-EX. I say this because as a judge, it shows me that you are confident and persistent in the questions that you are asking/answering.

-DO NOT SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE AND TRY TO JUSTIFY IT, and by offensive I mean anything that is racist, sexist, or just completely taboo. I will dock your speaker points!

aside from that, just have a good time and if you lose, that should be the least of your worries. this is literally just a learning experience that commodifies arguments to get your point across. I'm sure you have a much better life outside of this extracurricular activity...but if it is something you choose to devote yourself to on a daily basis then by all means pursue your goals and strive to be the best that you can possibly be within the activity. Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your goals, not even me!

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School. I coach with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

dana.bell@saschools.org for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

endrias@newschool.edu

Email for email chain : lydaouda223@gmail.com

Clarity>Speed
K's/K affs are fine but you must explain what the alt is and how I should value it over the opposing team.
You can run anything in the round, just explain it well.
I will have a prep time running but do keep your own prep. More comments can be given pre round. Don’t be racist, sexist, or abelist and have fun.

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

Hello -

I am a simple person who prefers a natural tone in debates.

My only request is that you do not spread if you do not need to. If you raise an argument by spreading, and an opponent does not address that argument (purely because of technical speed) I will not hold that un-heard argument as more valuable for scoring.

Good luck & have fun.

email:

christopher.polidoro@saschools.org

Hello, my name is Adja Seck and I'm an NYU student. I have done debate for over four years having to experience in Parliamentary, congressional, policy, and debate forums. In my debate space, I encourage students and debaters to make sure that they know what they are arguing. I should not have to make assumptions and explain your cards.

I have preferred and seen students running black fem affs and negs that have a discourse over kritiques, plans, and thesis. If students run Topicality cases, I would prefer them to do so with several Kritiques and plans that substitute the failure of the opposing team and solve the topic.

In my rounds, I will not allow card dumps in the last two speeches of the round, nor open cross-fires. The crossfires for me are used to analyze the speaker's quick thinking skills. I take Crossfires into account when assigning speaker scores.

If both teams do not read me solid cases with cards that I have to look over for clarification, I will make a decision using a reform policy-like mindset. I also allow off-time roadmaps

Students of course should be respectful during their rounds and use their time actuality. There will be room for flexibility. I disclose only the student's choices and if there is no time crunch in between rounds.

By the end of the round the winning team will have rebutted all cards,(if able to), presented and carried out cards and assertions that have stood, has been able to read and interpret their case at all moments of the debate, and is respectful to the opposing teams and to the judge, me.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

Gene Thomas

Debated at the University of Kansas 2016-2020

My ideal debate is a massive detailed counterplan w/ a good DA - do with that information what you will those are just my preferences and what I enjoy the most, but I have judged my fair share of clash debates and will give my more detailed thoughts and preconceptions below

Context is important so any of my thoughts below may change depending on what is happening in a given debate, so any of my ideas listed reflect how I would approach debate absent of judge instruction and the context provided by the situation.

I love seeing students having fun and being engaging. Please, if you feel comfortable, make jokes and employ your personality.

FW/K affs

For K teams: Please do your thing and do what you do best. My thoughts on framework are below so you can tailor your strategy to beat what I think are the most convincing arguments.

FW: I think fairness is an almost impossible impact to win against a prepared opponent and most of the internal links here(like predictability) are just internal links to education arguments anyway so your time is likely better spent making your impact just be education. I also think that a TVA is likely your best way to generate some level of impact mitigation to a non traditional affs offense. If your plan is to say the aff isn’t discussing something important I think you’ll be unlikely to have a lot of success in these types of debates. I’d recommend focusing more on internal link defense or offense because I can almost guarantee the aff is talking about something pretty important.

Random thought but I think your interpretation of the res isn’t any more predictable than the K aff if your interp picks and chooses portions of the resolution.

DAs

What is there really to say here? I like politics DAs, but topic DAs are likely more valuable from an educational perspective.

CPs

I think competition is ideally the result of textual and functional competition. Counterplans ideally have a solvency advocate. 2nc counterplans may persuade me that condo is bad so ideally counterplans have all their planks in the 1nc.

Ks

K team: Like I said before please do your thing and my comments on what I think are most persuasive are listed below to help you tailor your strategy to me. One more thought - I think movements alts don’t make a lot of sense to me

Vs K: I think when debating Ks impact framing and framework are your best plan to win because permutations and defense are likely pretty hard to win against most of these types of arguments. I personally prefer the style of big stick aff v K rather than soft left affs but do you.

I coach speech at Loyola School. My pronouns are they/them.

My speech paradigm is simple. Don’t be ableist/homophobic/racist/etc when choosing your material, and be a respectful audience member. Otherwise do you. When I was a competitor, I performed the seminal teen vampire romance Twilight as an HI, a DI, and a duo in the same season. Truly anything goes.

_________________

The following is my debate paradigm from my days coaching policy at SA Harlem North Central:

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I typically judge, middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate, and dare I say higher level high school debate. I'm a little rusty on higher theory/kritikal lit because the median age of my students is 12, so just make sure to explain those texts thoroughly. Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. I recognize that spreading is a necessary evil of this activity. I’d prefer if you wouldn’t for accessibility reasons. If I cannot hear your arguments, I cannot weigh them.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. My least favorite kind of debate to judge is one about procedural issues and debate norms. Keep it on the issues. Let's talk about how to make the world a better place, not whether or not condo is bad (and for the record, I'm on team limited condo good).

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, transphobia, cissexism, ableism, classism, or any other oppressive frameworks of thought. Cheap tricks will get you an automatic L.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flow tabs and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you. Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

12. If you're not taking notes during my RFD I'll stop talking and leave :) I know that sounds really aggressive but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and effort parsing through my notes and giving detailed feedback if you're not going to write it down somewhere.

Hi,

First and foremost we’re here to have fun and learn. You should be treating each other with respect and be kind. I take speaker points for rudeness.

I judge under the assumption that stock issues are the framework of the round. If you wish the round to be judged based on a different criteria it needs to be made clear in a framework argument.

Final speeches on both aff and neg need an overview with impact calculous.

I do not judge nor vote on cross x but i do listen to it. If something is stated in cross x that you feel will be beneficial to your debate then you need to address in a speech. Nothing in cross x will apply to voting decision, but you can pull from cross x to use it in your speech.

If you make a fairness argument then tell me why don’t just say fairness. Don’t contradict your own fairness argument. (ex. If you states bringing up new arguments in a neg block is unfair bc aff doesn't have time to answer it but then the 1ar answers you are proving your own fairness argument wrong)

I DO NOT vote on new arguments brought up in 2 a/n. You should know your 1 Ac and how long it takes to read it, shorten it if you have to. 2 AC is not there to finish the 1AC. Same for 2Nc don’t run a whole new argument in the block.

I don’t flow based on the email i flow based on whats said I have no problem with spreading but you do need to slow down on tags and authors also provide clear transitions for cards and arguments.

Roadmaps: 1 ac doesn’t get a roadmap, that makes no sense to me, 1NC need to just say how many off case and then where you plan to go on case (ex. 3 off then on). All speeches try to stick to the roadmap you give.

I have 8 years of debate experience in total, primarily through Public Forum coaching and competition, Congress coaching and competition, and British Parliamentary competition. My college education is in public policy research methods.

Chain: ryan.westwood@saschools.org

(I probably won't look unless there are clash-relevant evidence issues at the end)

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

• Debate is a privilege. Help make it more accessible. It’s concerning to me that debate is being almost universally personalized and gate-kept by absurd barriers to entry like pre-round disclosure, spreading, tricks, and exclusive identity politics.
• If you are citing studies, especially to quantify stuff, I care about the methodology. I like properly represented statistics and methodological criticism.
• PLEASE have an offline means of evidence-sharing (there is an ancient technology called the "flash drive" for this purpose), in case there are connection issues.
• Paper-based/in-round-disclosure debating (if any of you are still out there...): Evidence must be provided to opponents on request. The requesting team's prep time starts when the requested evidence is received, and, if there is only one copy of the evidence, it must be returned to the opponent when prep time is stopped.
• I have a bias toward traditional debate vs. progressive debate, especially if it centers on exclusive (and usually reductive) identity politics in a vacuum. It seems to always throw objectivity out the window. Also, debate is inherently zero-sum, so identity debates are bound to devolve into harmful ad hominem nonsense, with teams assigning identities and non-identities to each other and indicting them accordingly. I’ll do my best to objectively evaluate these debates, but you will almost always lose me if your advocacy revolves around nihilism. Please at least try to make your assigned role as Aff or Neg matter, and--if it's PF or LD--avoid advancing plans.
• [TLDR: "Theory" about the rules of debate is usually nonsense to me, and I recommend you stay away from it.] The NSDA has already set evidence rules, including one which explicitly permits paraphrasing and none requiring anything beyond in-round disclosure on request. So, advocating for new evidence rules in-round is like advocating for new speech time limits in-round: it is paradoxical and unfair to opponents who acted on the official rules vs. the ones you are making up. Unless explicitly contradicted by the tournament-specific rules, the NSDA rules are what new competitors, new coaches, and local-circuit/small-school teams, at least, are presumed to look at when making decisions about whether to paraphrase, etc., so I have a difficult time seeing rules "theory" as having the impact of inclusion. AND it's almost impossible for you to stay topical, because it doesn't matter which evidence is more reputable if you aren't providing any evidence for me to compare, AND your position as Aff or Neg becomes irrelevant once you devote your entire case to off-topic rules "theory". All that being said, I think debate is fundamentally about creativity and not necessarily about winning or losing, so I will never hold a grudge or stop listening just because you are running rules "theory", especially if you acknowledge the official rules and make the argument relevant to your assigned role in the debate.

Policy:

• The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech
• I am relatively new to advanced policy. Treat me as a flay judge. If you use policy-specific jargon beyond the basics (burdens), explain plainly and briefly what it means for my flow. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.
• I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

Public Forum:

• PF is built to be an accessible debate. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.

• The closest thing you have to fiat power is setting a relevant framework. Give me something to weigh early if you don’t have a case framework. A debate is won by the team which wins as outlined or implied by the better-justified framework/weighing.

• Principles are valid impacts if well-justified and clashed appropriately against other impacts.

• I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

• The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech.