ONLINE: you must send docs. I am asking that you don’t spread. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

I only listen to CX to hold you accountable and to potentially gain context on something I'm confused about. If you want it to be flowed you need to say it in a speech.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

Hi, I am a lay parent judge. Please speak loud and clear for me to be able to follow. No spreading. I will raise my hand if you are speaking too fast for me, to be able to slow down a bit. Explain any of your opponent's violations clearly in layman terms. Also, please manage your time appropriately. Thank you very much and Good luck.

please speak clearly, explain your reasoning, and give impacts.

I prefer you to time yourselves and hold yourselves accountable on timing.

Please keep it respectful and keep around a conversational pace.

I consider myself to be 'tabula rasa' aka 'clean slate and will vote for anything if there is reason to vote for it on the flow. Weighing and key voters are very important with me. I was an LDer from 2009-2013 and coached from 2013-2014.

I am not a fan of spreading these days (haven't judged or coached regularly for years); however, I am okay if you choose to spread anyway-- it's 'at your own risk'. If I cannot understand you I will say 'clear' once and if you do not adjust I will stop flowing what you are reading.

Feel free to ask me about anything more specific.

This is my second time judging this school year, so please don't assume familiarity with the literature.

Spreading: I understand that the culture of debate may incline you to speak faster to present more points. However, if you speak too fast (i.e. spread), I will most likely not be able to understand you or remember what you said. I highly advise against spreading.

Speak clearly and enunciate important points. If I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Speak up! Speaking too low means I'm going to struggle to hear your points.

Important: Explain to me why you win. I prefer that you strongly support your value/criterion and impact.

I realize that most competitors are trained to talk fast to get as much points across. I do tend to take notes while both sides present. Because of this:

1. Speak clearly, do not speed.

2. I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by becoming emotional.

3. Be respectful of each other. Let each other speak (especially during cross) and answer any questions that come up. I'm okay with being assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable.

I realize that all of you are trained to talk fast to get as much points across but remember only you know what you talking but not me. Speed talking will limit me from judging appropriately. Because of this:

1. Speak clearly, loudly but do not speed.

2. I like quantitative evidence not qualitative evidence.

3. Be respectful of each other. Let each other speak (especially during cross) and answer any questions that come up. I'm okay with being assertive, but showing general contempt and facial disappointment are not acceptable.

Hi I am a lay judge and my daughter is writing this paradigm.

This is my first year judging. I did some debate in high school. Please no spreading or progressive debate-no Ks or theory. Plans and counterplans are OK as long as you explain them thoroughly. Have fun!

I am a former LD debater, and have currently been judging semi-consistently for 3 years. When it comes to style of debate, I am open to almost all types of traditional and progressive forms. I will not accept non-topical critiques or disclosure theory (If you have any questions about this or a certain theory or critique you wanna run, feel free to ask before the start of the round). I also will not allow flux prep part way through the debate, both debaters must agree to flux prep before the round if they would like to do so. regardless of style of debate or speed, fluency should be happening to an understandable level, and I would ask if you are to read at a spreading speed then please slow down to a normal pace for headlines and authors. If you are worried about your mic working consistently either due to its quality or internet connection, please don't. I will ask everyone to send their cases over and I will read and count anything from the highlighted section of your cards even if your mic cuts out for technological reasons. That being said, I will need your case to be properly formatted and highlight (or at the very least done in a way that is understandable to read and listen for me and your opponent). Please don't waste your time explaining debate jargon or the resolution (unless there is a legitimate reason to provide definitional framing in your case) to me, I have debated and judged long enough to understand what you are going for in most cases. I expect and prefer strong line by line arguing and sign posting for me and your opponent throughout your rebuttal speeches. I would also suggest giving key voters at the end of the round in order to neatly crystalize your arguments and framework evaluate the round. If I have missed anything beyond what has been previously stated feel free to ask me before the round has started.

I am a first time parent judge so please speak clearly and don't assume familiarity with the literature. Don’t spread; if you do, I will raise my hand as a signal to slow down. Explain to me why you should win and explain any of your opponent's violations in layman terms. I expect you to hold yourself accountable on timing.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

Hi debaters,

I would like a conversational pace. If you go to fast, I can't guarantee I will hear and take in everything you say.

Please tell me how much prep time you will be using so I can warn you if you go over.

Try not to miss others' arguments as it usually is hard to come back from.

It doesn't matter if your in a suit or casual clothes you will all be judged the same so don't worry.

If you wanna win with me as a judge I like a lot of clash so try and disprove arguments rather than just ignore their's and extend yours.

Cross-ex is very important as it can help with arguments later so try your best to set up traps.

I hope we have a great round and remember to try your best.

My name is Lorenzo,

I don't enjoy spreading during your speech. If I can't understand the words from your speech, I'm not going to understand your speech.

Try to signpost (be clear on where you are in your case)

Make sure to time yourself. Don't want to get caught lacking during your rebuttals when you go over time and your opponent has to stop you or you still have time remaining and you waste it.

If you want you win your case, don't state that your case or argument is better but state why and how. Explain how your arguments link to impact and your value. Balance your attacks with your defense on your case (try to not spend to much time on attacking your opponents if you haven't defended your case and vice versa).

Lock in and have fun.

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

Tim Alderete was my coach, I agree with him on most things. More complete stuff below:

General:

Truth > tech , but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I see debate as less of a game and more of an educational forum. I don't like arguments that I find "bad" or "stupid" (ex: Politics DA, Process CPs, Consult CPs). That being said, you should debate how you want, but just know the bar is higher for me than in front of a lot of other judges with some arguments.

Against local debaters/novices, pls be nice and accommodating.

Prefs:

Policy vs DAs/CPs -1

Policy vs K - 1

K affs vs T - 2

K aff vs K - 2

Theory - 3

Phil - 4 (explain warrants very clearly please)

Tricks - strike me

Topicality:

You need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.

Counterplans:

Running multi-plank CPs with conditional planks or spamming uncarded counterplan texts feels abusive to me, and I'm a lot more persuaded by conditionality when you explain how these supercharge abuse.

I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

DAs:

I hate the politics DA

Ks:

All Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.

I don't see anything wrong with kicking out of the alt and winning on framework/treating it like a DA. It makes the path to the ballot more difficult, but I don't think it's a prereq for a successful K.

Explain your perms and why they overcome the link.

Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.

K affs:

I'm not the best for non-topical affirmatives, probably spend a little more time warranting your ROTB than you normally would.


Cross Examination:

It’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.

I am an Assistant Coach for Milpitas High School. I have been judging since 2009. I have judged mostly LD and Public Forum and some policy. I PREFER persuasive delivery, NOT speed. I flow every round, but I do not flow at spread speed.

My Preferred Pronouns: she/her

For all debaters:
When you are speaking, stand up. I've noticed in some rounds that competitors do not even stand up and just sit and stare at their computers and talk as fast as they can. With me, their speaker points would be incredibly low for this. (Under 15) - This is a big no-no. Always stand up during your speeches. I WILL give low speaks for not standing during speeches.(You do not have to stand during grand crossfire in PF- this is the only exception).

Will I disclose results? Is it required? No? Then probably not. I will write feedback on the ballot though, including an RFD and other relevant information for you to read. I am a flow judge. Keep that in mind and try not to drop things on the flow.



LD

For novices:

I look for logic, good evidence, and DO NOT drop contentions. Support your value and criteria well with your contentions - there needs to be a link.

For Varsity:

Speed: No spreading. I do not flow spread speed. If you spread, I will not get everything you are saying down and I'm a flow judge. I've had top seeds lose a round to low seed because two judges split their decision and I was the deciding judge and the top seed spread the round. Just do not spread in a round with me if you want to win the round.

I do not have a particular philosophy concerning what I will vote on. If you can convince me, I'm open to it. This means almost anything... I'm open to theory, philosophy, Kritiks...If you are running a K, It may be more difficult for you to convince me but not impossible. IF you run a plan or CP though, keep in mind that I will judge you like I judge policy debates and I am a stock issues judge for policy - that means you have to meet ALL FIVE stock issues in order to win on AFF. (Topicality, Solvency, Harms, Inherency, and Significance). If you drop one or lose one, you lose the round. Also, do remember to be at least borderline respectful of each other. Stand up during speeches and during cross ex or I give reduced speaker points.



Public Forum

Always have framework. If you don't have framework, be prepared to consent to whatever framework your opponent lays out and prove that your case supports their framework better. Framework matters.

Be sure to have evidence to back up your claims (that you can show when asked for it by opponent or judge). Make sure you attack your opponents case as well as offer your own. Just offering your own case without attacking your opponents is not enough to win usually. I look for logic as well as evidence when attacking an opponent's case - it's always good to use both to support your own case and to attack your opponent's case. I like tags and cites and DATES. Use credible evidence. If I do not hear an author/date, I typically just write "blah blah" or "no source" on the flow, since I assume you are saying it yourself and it is not coming from a source. Do not cite Fox News or Wikipedia. Also do not use Huff Post unless you are saying the author name and credentials. Do not drop things on the flow. As a flow judge, that means if you drop something, you agree with it.




Policy

I have some experience with judging policy. I do not like speed. Speak clear, and in a reasonable pace or I will not be able to keep up with what you say and judge accordingly. If I put down my pen (or stop typing if I am using my computer at the time) while you are giving a speech and stare at you, it's because you are talking too fast and I can not write anything - it's a hint to slow down or you are not getting credit for anything you say. (In other words, do NOT spread with me). You do not have to talk slow though, as I've been judging for 5 years and can keep pace reasonably well.
I am a Stock issues judge and I generally follow this paradigm.
I do not have an issue with tag team cross ex. I also do not have an issue with flex prep. (Asking questions for clarifications during your own prep time)

Parli


Generally speaking AFF sets up how the round will be run in Parli debate. Depending on what type of debate AFF decides to run, see above on how I judge each type of debate. I'm a pretty consistent judge so if you run a plan count on me judging like I judge policy debate. If you run a Value debate, count on me judging you like I judge LD and so on.

General Paradigms:

I will be keeping time, but you should be timing yourself, as well.

I expect you to also keep your prep time but I will be keeping it just in case as well.

Please be friendly, respectful, and professional.

Debate Paradigms:

A little bit about me, I have been debating for 4 years and I went to nationals in BQ debate. I am currently attending college and I help teach middle school debate on the side. I think the most important thing about this event is being persuasive. You can tell me a million cards but if you don't explain their relevance or how it helps you I don't have a reason to believe it. Logic can also play a big part in the resolution so it would be advantageous to use it.

For construction speech be clear so I can hear what you are saying and write it all down. I am good with speed but do not spread.

I will be timing you and I'll allow a 5-10 sec grace period for all speeches but if you go over I will stop listening.

In rebuttal please address everything and make sure to sign-post so I know where you are on the flow. For me, I expect the AFF to rebut all of the NEG's points in the rebuttal speech. For the NEG I expect the same thing along with all the defense (I know it might seem unfair but I extend this responsibility of the defense to the AFF in the consolidation so it evens out).

For cross-fire please ask questions and don't use it as an opportunity to discuss your case. I do not flow this part of the debate so if you think you made a good point then say it in your next speech.

Make sure to flow through everything you deem important in the consolidation or I will not. I am okay with bringing up new evidence in the consolidation, especially for the AFF since this is your first speech for defense. For the NEG not as much unless the AFF brings in new rebuttals against your case (which really shouldn't happen). Consolidation is also a much shorter time so make sure to pick and only extend the main analysis, you should not be reading your case or cards that have been read in previous speeches as I have already heard them and you will also waste a lot of time. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER REBUTTAL SPEECH. I really want to see you responding with the defense and extending the warranting for your case instead of only focusing on attacking the other side.

For the last speech, I'll be looking for closing arguments. It is not enough to repeat your consolidation, please explain your points in the context of the resolution and relate your points back to the burden to show me why you think you should win. Please be clear and concise in your final speech so I can easily make my RDF. If I hear new evidence I will not include it in my decision and it may reflect poorly on you. Note I extend new evidence to include anything in your case or rebuttal that was not said in the consolidation (I am not too concerned if you say rephrase something in a card you extended in the consolidation, I am looking more at if you make an entirely new claim).

I don't think you need prep time to look at cards but obviously, if it takes you more than 30sec-1min then I will start timing you. This also means if you are the side providing the card it shouldn't take more than 30sec-1min to pull up the specific quote.

I'm not very strict about what I look for in speaker points but obviously, in a tie-breaker that could be a factor so if you do everything I asked for in my paradigms, I will give you the maximum amount. If you forget a couple of things or if your speech organization is a bit messy then I will dock some points.

Policy:

I have a very rough understanding of Policy, but I am still a flow judge so I will vote based off of the flow. The main thing I am looking for is solvency but other than that I can pretty much understand anything.

General Dislike:

These are my debate icks. Just don't do them.

please.

1. Yelling your speech when I am 5 feet away from you, pls calm down
2. Talking to your screen so that I can't hear you
3. lying about cards (which could make you lose the round)
4. lying about your opponent (like saying that they didn't respond to your points when you, me, and your opponent(s) know that they did)
5. using debate speech incorrectly
6. debater math
7. saying "I think this is wrong because.." + giving an opinion as a rebuttal
8. personal evidence
9. talking to your partner (or to yourself?) during your opponent's speech
10. leading questions or "do you agree?" questions
11. arguing after the round is over
12. packing up during your opponent's final speech
13. loud pen clicking
14. rolling eyes (try your best to control your emotions even if it is completely justified, and I will know when it is or isn't)
15. texting someone on your phone or laptop (I'm pretty sure it's not allowed as well)
16. angrily typing on your laptop
17. general disrespect to your opponent or to me

Hello, I am Rayna Shaik, a current freshman at ASU. I did LD, BQ, CX, and PF in high school, so I understand pretty much all the nuances of debate, and I am a pretty technical judge. I can follow any type of argumentation. I value evidence, but I also very much value the logical side of debate. I think if you can show me that you are able to argue with logical reasoning, that has the same weight as cards in my book.

I am a flow judge, and I WILL NOT weigh new argumentation in final speeches (I see it done a lot), and I expect you guys to signpost. If I cannot follow or understand an argument, I will probably ask you about it or drop it, depending on my mood. I flow rounds, and even though they are messy, I would like weighing done for me; just pretend I am a dumb 5th grader when it comes to the topic. I will give feedback, but I generally don't like disclosing.

Debaters who portray a persona of racial or gender bias and discrimination in any form and use it as a tool to bully or demean other debaters will be marked down. We want to make sure that debate is a safe place for us all. So please be kind.

I am a parent judge with not much experience. This is the third tournament I have participated. You can talk fast but do not spread. Clarity and volume are more important. I value analysis and reasoning, especially in rebuttals. You should be able to understand and defend your case. Use logic and common sense. It is important to have relevant evidence. I do not disclose, I need time to analyze the round and determine the winner.

Hello, my name is Rajin, this is my first year judging a PF and LD judge. You can consider me a lay judge. Make sure your arguments make sense, and please refrain from any negative remarks outside of resolution.

I like a strong V/C debate where the competitor can explain how the criterion upholds the value. I also like the framework to be the outline for the case where the contentions relate to the V/C.

I notice evidence sources and tag-lines so please mention them.

I appreciate a brief voter speech at the end of the round to summarize the key ballot issues.

I don't flow CX but use the time wisely and ask relevant questions.

If you run theory, please make sure to have interp, violations, and standards. If you run a K, have a link, impact, and alt.

Although I judge LD, I like impact calc. Show me why in your specific framework world, your impact would be the worst possible outcome.

I like when debaters label their CP (ex: actor, delay, conditionality) and declare the status (if they can kick the advocacy or not).

I think debate is a great space to have civilized discussions about important topics so let's keep it respectful and analytical!

Ezzah Tariq (she/her)

Add me to the email chain: ezzah_tariq@themeadowsschool.org

I am a doc loyalist, I love the doc, make sure your doc is in order, put your analytics on the doc (if you don't, just indicate that it is not on the doc and slow down on anylitics)

About me: I am a varsity LD debater, so I am familiar with the topic, debate styles, and those shenanigans, trust. My coach is Tim Alderete, Iso if you wanna know more about me and how I debate: look there.

I am the judge for you to try new things. I will vote on almost anything as long as it is not racist, homophobic, etc. If you are going to run a trick (if you know what that is), Kritique, or Theory make sure to explain them really well, which means you need to know them really well. Please do not run an argument that you don't even know. If I don't understand it, then I can't vote on it. Tech>Truth but the distinction is small.

When going against local/novice debaters, please be nice and accomidating. A good debater is one that knows how to adapt.

Guide me throw the flow, be hyper organized. Trust me it will always help you.

Framework is my lense to the debate and I will never auto vote on util because life is most important. Don't be afraid to give me a new lense. Argue your lense. Make me see through your lense. Trust.

Case:

Case is great. Make sure your cards are warranted and not underhighlighted please. Make sure to impact weigh and extend all your arguments. The way I judge is that I go for unanswered arguments first, so make sure you don't accidentally miss anything.

K's:

All Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important. You won't auto loose if you kick out of the K, but make it a last option.

Aff Ks: do spend some more time explaining affirmative cases. Tell me the story why you choose to do an Aff K especially if it is not topical. Try to have a link to the resolution tho, it helps prevent a strong topicality response.

Topicality:

You need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the nr.

Counterplans:

Running multi-plank CPs with conditional planks or spamming uncarded counterplan texts feels abusive to me, and I'm a lot more persuaded by conditionality when you explain how these supercharge abuse.

I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.

Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.

Theory:

I adore theory. I think debate is what we make it and we can make it better. BUT disclosure is only valid when there is nothing disclosed. Theory is great. Trust. Condo amazing. I loveeeeee Theory.

Speaks:

As long as you are organized and speak well, you will get good speaks. I do not give you better speaks for eye contact. I disclose via verbal rfd, so I will not type it. Follow the flow! The flow is the way to go.

Debate is meant to be a fun activity, so please enjoy yourself. If you have any questions about the round or debate in general, please ask after the round or email me. If there is something that needs an accomidation, let me know before the round.

Be respectful to your opponent.

Philosophy: I approach LD debate with an open mind and value clarity, coherence, and well-grounded arguments. My background is not deeply rooted in debate theory, so I appreciate clear and accessible explanations. I believe in fostering a positive and educational environment for all debaters.

Flowing: I will do my best to flow the debate and follow the arguments. However, please make sure to signpost and clearly articulate the structure of your case to help me stay organized.

Speed: I prefer a moderate speaking pace. If you notice me struggling to keep up, consider slowing down, especially during crucial points or complex arguments.

Framework: Clearly establish your framework and provide reasons why it should be preferred. I appreciate a straightforward framework that guides the debate, making it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

Content: Present your arguments logically and provide real-world applications when possible. I value substance over pure technicality. Avoid heavy jargon, but if necessary, explain terms to ensure clarity.

Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. A well-articulated clash helps me in determining the strength of your case.