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, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should 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 take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

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.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

hi i'm emily! i'm a sophomore at horace mann and i've debated PF for a few years on the natcirc

emilysdebateemail@gmail.com.

make the round clean and easy to evaluate. if you're not a decent person, i'll stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks.

how i evaluate: i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. if you are winning the weighing and have a risk of offense, i'll almost certainly vote for you:

- if team A is winning the weighing, i look to their side first. if they're winning their link into the weighing, the ballot is signed.

- if team A isn't winning the link into the weighing, i'll then look to team B's case. if there's offense on team B's case, the ballot is signed.

- if there's no offense in the round, i'll presume neg (this happens pretty rarely tho!)

General Stuff:

- speed is chill but if you're going over 250 wpm send a doc. slow down on implications, analytics, and tags, but you can speed up on the evidence. that being said, i would rather judge a well warranted narrative debate than the dumping of 30 different blippy responses in rebuttal, but debate how you want to debate.

- metaweighing is key. if both teams are reading different weighing mechanisms, tell me which one i should evaluate first, otherwise i am forced to intervene on the weighing debate, and that's not fun. generally, i evaluate prereqs > link ins > probability (if it's not link defense) > mag/scope > timeframe > SOL. that's how i'll evaluate weighing absent metaweighing - so please metaweigh!

- summary and ff have to write my ballot. i have a pretty low threshold for extensions, but i want good warrants extended in the back half speeches for all offense. defense is NOT sticky - if you want me to evaluate defense it must be extended in the back half speeches. i will NOT grant offense on turns if there is no weighing on the turns extended.

- collapsing is a given - if you don't your speaks are capped at a 28. the number of rounds i've judged where people don't collapse is ridiculously high, so please do. please also be smart about your collapse strategy in the back half, your speaks will thank you.

- 2nd rbtl must frontline terminal defense or it's conceded

Prog:

go for it, but i am not a fan. i would MUCH rather judge a substance round :(

Speaks:

- speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking

- automatic 30s if: you pay me $5+ (per person) before the round starts or buy me bubble tea/a strawberry acai from starbucks.

debated for a year on the ms circuit for bergen and two years for ardrey kell on the nat circuit

for non varsity divisions:

none of the stuff under this will make any sense really so in general just try your best

I care much more about argumentation then presentation but if presentation is horrible it will factor into your speaks (not the decision)

give me comparisons of impacts in round please

varsity only below

tldr:

tech judge, speed ok, theory ok, tech > truth

put me on that email chain: sheaustin42@gmail.com

in round:

preflow before round

just tell me where you're starting & signpost, no offtime roadmaps

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u don't send docs with cards i'll cap ur speaks at 27 and you should take no more than 5 minutes to prep a card doc

if you need time to send a marked doc im taking it out of your prep cuz it really should not take that long - stop trying to steal prep

if u spread: send speech docs, however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow - i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go fast (but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be implicated and weighed in rebuttal to be voted for

i have a pretty high threshold for what i consider turns - i need uniqueness, impact, and weighing

do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in probability + clarity of anything weighing

meta weighing makes me happy

so does weighing AGAINST YOUR OPPONENTS IMPACTS; actually talk about their impacts, dont just talk about yours

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

i will be playing brawl stars in cross so no guarantees i hear everything

cross is binding but reference it in speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

i like open cross

evidence:

warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev > unwarranted uncarded analysis

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or if i want to use it in my case!

strike me if you don't cut cards

i hate bad evidence ethics which means no brackets

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

i hate nonchalant cx please actually put effort into cross

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

Ks:

i like Ks and most of them are very interesting but also complex please do not blaze through 20 pages of random long words strung together and pretend like anyone can understand it

idk how tricks work i'll try to evaluate them

running prog just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

theory:

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

i default: disclo good, OS good, para bad, brackets bad, no rvis, CI > R, spirit > text, DTD > DTA

things i wont evaluate:

- any __ist or ___phobic arguments and no i don't care if some old guy says anything different

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (unless tourney rules prohibit it), just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me (preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

if you include a VCT reference i'll give you 30 speaks

she/her

"topshelf"

I debated on the NatCirc every year in HS under Canyon Crest with various partners

Post-rounding is encouraged -- I love yapping but understand that's not for everyone

Include me in email chains: michisynn@gmail.com

Any racist / homophobic / sexist, etc etc argument will earn you a loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give at the tournament. This should go without saying.

TLDR

• I vote on what's in summary and FF
• I'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
• winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round ????
• warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
• I generally give high speaks (28.0 +)
• I am bad at judging prog but will if I have to
• All of the suggestions below are based on my personal debate style. I would never punish a debater for not reading my paradigm or debating exactly like me. Just please have fun and learn something!

ROUND LOGISTICS

• Keep evidence exchanges quick. Set up an email chain before round. Yes, I want to be included.
• No skipping Grand Cross for prep because a) you should be budgeting your prep wisely and b) grand cross is funny
• For online debate, I am generally very sympathetic towards technical difficulties, so PLEASE do not take advantage of the format to steal prep / generally commit abuses
• Send docs if reading 250 WPM + (normally I judge MS so I will be confused if you do this LOL)

CONSTRUCTIVE

• Make your internal links crystal clear, especially if you are terminalizing to nuke war or extinction
• Send a doc if you are speaking 250+ WPM
• I am completely fine with paraphrasing, as long as you can provide the cut card to check back for abuse

REBUTTAL

• Signpost clearly
• Number responses if possible
• Implicate responses well rather than just reading debate jargon
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline (respond to the 1st rebuttal's attacks on your case)
• Let me know when you're going to their case if you are a 2nd rebuttal speaker

SUMMARY

• You must cover in some way, shape, or form: offense, defense, frontlining, weighing. I don't care in what order you do this, but these components must be in summary.
• High level weighing with good warranting is very strategic
• Please extend your entire link, internal link, impact (and uniqueness if that's important to the topic)
• On their case, 2 implicated responses >>> 4 unimplicated responses. Also, defense is not sticky.

FINAL FOCUS

• Collapse in this speech if you haven't done so already
• In my opinion, this speech should be heavy on big picture analysis and weighing, but as long as you cover their case, your case, and weighing you should be good.

PROG

• My opinions on this are very brief because I have limited experience with prog.
• Framing --> Run it well. Provide well researched and well thought out warranting as to why your impacts are more important, not just "education," "we brought it up first," "discourse"

• Theory --> No friv theory PLEASE. Logical analytical responses >>>> brain dead circuit responses (like the theory baiting response). Theory comes before substance b/c it's prefiat so I would suggest narrowing the debate to theory after the constructives (or whenever it's brought up)

• Ks --> I strongly dislike topical Ks because the alts are vague, but feel free to run one and I will up you if you win on the flow. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about nontopical Ks. Again, I will up you if you win on the flow.
• Regardless of what kind of K you are reading, please make the lit accessible during the round. If someone asks you about any of the "isms" in cross, please provide a basic explanation rather than spouting off buzz words. Debate is ultimately an educational activity.
• Also, please provide TWs if you are reading graphic depictions of violence and give the opposing team a document with the offensive / violent language blurred out. Warning people ahead of time is in my opinion never a bad thing and allows people in round to mentally prepare for what they are about to hear. You can still read your advocacy -- I would not want to limit or censor debaters.

• Tricks / High Theory / Friv Theory / anything strange and peculiar --> I am not the judge to run this on. Read this on Justin Wang and Derek Song :3

Ask me any questions before the round and please reach out if there were issues in the round / at the tournament! This activity is really important to me, and it's critical that debaters feel safe and confident.

i am cady. my paradigm is her. she is me. ????????????