I'm a lawyer and have judged parli debates several times. I've also judged mock trials and moot court. I want to hear the strongest and most credible evidence that supports your position. Sometimes less is more. I like debaters that anticipate their opponents' arguments and try to steal their thunder. As for style, I don't care if you talk fast so long you are clear and understandable. Respect your opponent. To quote the Bard, "And do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends." 

I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

It is my understanding that Parli is about analytical thinking; please lay everything out for me clearly. Please show me your logic chain, share your roadmap/plan, and walk me through the argument.

I encourage you to speak slowly and clearly so that I can hear your points.

I commit to leaving my biases out of my judgement.

Thank you for having me here; I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Dinesh Elaprolu

I have been involved as a debate judge for last 2 years. I am familiar with both Middle School debate and Parliamentary debate.

As a judge, I believe my role is to evaluate objectively and not introduce my personal beliefs or opinions in my decision process. I want the students to follow the ground rules and be clear with their arguments and evidences. I will flow the round, so I expect clear reasonings and properly cited evidences in my decision process. As per the rules, I will not allow new evidence or arguments in the final speeches. I am comfortable with any speed, provided the debater can articulate his reasonings well.

I expect debaters to treat each other and the judge with respect and as I mentioned above my decision will be based on debaters performance and not my personal beliefs.

Please feel free to ask me questions after the round and I will try my best to clarify your doubts.

Hello I am Karen Fleshman, Esq. (she her hers). As a high school student, I competed in nationals in forensics and am excited to judge today for the first time. I graduated from Mount Holyoke College (BA Latin American Studies), the University of Texas at Austin (MA- Radio TV Film) and New York Law School (JD cum laude, Evening Division) and am admitted to practice law in New York. My preference is that you speak slowly and pause so I can absorb what you are saying. Thank you and looking forward to seeing you today.

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

Hello! I am a parent judge and I would like you to not spread.

- I award speaker points to the person/team who is persuasive, logical and confident.

- I have judged PF and Parli

I am a scientist who is open to new ideas and welcomes different opinions. Convince me with your strong, clear arguments! Speak clearly and with confidence will get you far.

I'm honored to be a judge and so impressed with the quality of teams that I have the pleasure to judge:

- I find roadmaps helpful, either off-time or on-time is fine

- Please speak at a pace that is understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I won't be able to hear your key points

- Please be respectful to me, your teammate, and your opponents

Good luck and make your school proud!

I am a parent and I have judged several times.

I am a lawyer and a litigator. When I appear before judges, I like to get to the point quickly.

I find sign-posting and early summations to be extremely helpful. Briefly tell me where you are going and how you will get there. Don't assume that I know what something means.

I expect courtesy and respect towards others. Please do not be rude or dismissive towards the other side.

Slow down and have confidence in yourself!

Hello, I am Naveena Premkrishna. I am honored to serve as a judge for today's debate. I am a Software Engineer and a People Leader. I am a parent judge and I am new to judging parli.

I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. I value well-structured and logically sound arguments. Use credible sources to support your claims, and make sure your evidence is relevant to the topic. Clear and concise communication is essential. I'd prefer you speak slowly and pause so I can absorb your arguments. Avoid jargon and use plain language. Organize your speech in a way that is easy to follow. Road maps and structure would help me. Speak audibly, and make effective use of gestures and body language.

For winning criteria, I will consider the overall quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence, the effectiveness of rebuttals, and the clarity of communication. Regardless of the outcome, I encourage all debaters to use this experience as an opportunity for growth and learning. Good luck to both teams and let's have a great debate!

Parli: I'm a semi-experienced judge; I've judged at approx 7 tournaments. I'm a research manager in my job which means I frequently develop insights with rationales & evidence. I am most interested in your logic and persuasion. I'm not a "technical judge." Please keep your pace no faster than medium so I can fully comprehend your well constructed arguments. Thanks!

Extemp: I've judged one tournament with extemp rounds. I look for clear structure, elements that make your points relatable for "regular people" like me, evidence that links well to your claims and ability to pace well to get your full structure in during the time given.

Speech:I have more experience with Parli and less with Speech but I lean on my background in theater and improv to guide some of my observations. In interpretation events (e.g. POI, DI), I'm looking for cohesive themes that weave together your sources and ideas into a strong POV. I pay attention to thoughtful, appropriate movement that enhances your scenes. I'm looking for distinct characters with clear personalities conveyed through line delivery, vocal and facial expression, varying intensity. I appreciate the hard work it takes to be vulnerable and genuine. In Extemp, I'm looking for a well organized, logical plan showing your clear POV on how you are approaching the topic. I hope to see who you are shine through your analysis and delivery.

Hi. I'm a relatively new judge. I appreciate clarity, organization and not rapid-fire speech. Respect among competitors and colleagues is appreciated. Looking forward to hearing your arguments. Please only use niche debate terms if necessary and explain. Thank you.

Hello! I'm a relatively new judge. I appreciate clarity and not rapid-fire speech, and courtesy along the way with the opposing team. I look forward to hearing your well-laid out arguments. Thank you.

Experience: I have a lot of experience in IPDA debate so some things I like. To win my ballot for Affirmative you need everything topicality, contentions and really importantly impact calculus. If Aff doesn't do this I will not vote for you. For Neg you only have to prove that what they're saying isn't true or won't have the same effect to the opponent. For Neg I need topicality, contentions, as well as impact calculus. If both sides are missing these critical points I will almost always default to the negation unless the Aff has some strong logic why I shouldn't.

Kritiks: Don't run any of these by me absolutely none or that's an automatic vote against you. I dislike these and find it to take away from the integrity and education of the debate for a win and feel its a cheap strategy.

Sportsmanship: I understand Debate is highly competitive and emotions can run high please keep it under control. I don't like rudeness or disrespect and if your opponent is being that way towards you please let me handle it.

Overall: Have fun enjoy and run Strong arguments do not discount my Paradigm as I will use it every debate without a doubt.

Current undergraduate student at Berkeley with 4 years of experience in PF.

Email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu. Add me to the email chain.

TLDR: Everything below is a preference, and not a rule. Following these preferences does NOT guarantee a win. Do what you have to do to win the debate. I will literally evaluate ANYTHING (I mean it) so long as it is intelligible.

Tech > Truth

[1] General:

Spreading: I don't enjoy it. If you're going to spread, send a speech-doc.

Signposting: Yes, signpost.

Crystallization: Not super important for me personally, though it can be beneficial if the round is getting muddy.

Final Focus (the last speech, not only PF but other events like Parli). Given that you're not making new (particularly no substantive arguments, requesting to look at cards for example will be evaluated) arguments, I will evaluate FF.

I don't flow cross. I listen, sometimes. For Parli: I don't flow POIs, but I DO flow POOs.

Make unique arguments, I love unique arguments

I enjoy charismatic humor (have fun). Don't be disrespectful to your opponents or your teammate(s). Humor won't (by itself) win you the round, but it's a massive plus. Besides, we're all here to have a good time. If you debate like your college applications don't depend on it, you'll find that you'll have much, much more fun.

I enjoy disclosing, but sometimes it takes me forever to go over the flow and review both sides, forcing competitors to wait for me to make a decision. This adds a ton of pressure on me to finish up early that frankly does neither side justice. So unless a tournament explicitly requests that I disclose or I have already made my decision, I don't disclose. If I am on a panel in outrounds, I almost always disclose. Feel free to ask me post-round if I'm disclosing and I'll lyk.

+ 1.5 Speaks for Team(s) That:

• Collapse on a "try or die" framework
• Argue for a ROTB argument on feminism/women's rights
• Introduce a new side about debate I didn't already know about (whatever that means lol)

Do all three earnestly and I will award 30 speaks.

/

[2] Theory:

Ts: I like Ts, -- and topicality debate-- a lot. That being said: Worry less about the "structure" of a T shell and more about the actual argument you're making. You can spend time going down the voters, issues, etc but at the end of the day I'm there to vote for an argument, so make it tangible and easy to vote for. I generally default RVIs.

Ks: I've run feminism/sexism-related ROTB Ks in high school but haven't worked with more of the standard Ks such as Cap Ks, Set Col, etc. I wrote my college application essays on an experience regarding running sexism ROTB K's, so I'd say I have a pretty decent understanding of how to run a K. While I can't promise that I'll be able to keep up, I'd definitely like to learn more about K debate and so I'm generally open to them.

DAs: I like them when they're run by themself in the 1NC. Makes the round cleaner and easier to flow. In other words, I find judging a DA enjoyable when the DA is the entirety of Neg's case.

/

[3] Hot Takes:

[A] Harmful content should be defined VERY NARROWLY. I believe that it's very easy to define uncomfortable arguments as harmful, and that they need to be properly defined in order to protect people, while concurrently allowing free expression within an academic setting. I do not require trigger warnings [unless tournament rules specify otherwise]. I will drop a debater for harmful content if:

1. It goes against the tournament rules. That's not in my hands, so make sure to read the tournament handbook.

2. You're being disrespectful or outright rude to your opponent(s), partner, or judge(s).

[B] Low-point wins should not be a rarity. Speaks and a pure flow debate have absolutely nothing to do with another. You can be both a good speaker and a good flow debater, and you can also be a terrible speaker and a good flow debater. I do not and will never understand why some circuits discourage low-point wins.

[C] If you make a frontline or response that goes unresponded to, you should not be obliged to extend it throughout the round, because it is the burden of your opponent to flow it and respond to it. For example, if your opponent doesn't respond to your rebuttal speech frontlines in first summary, you do not have to bring it up in second summary. You should bring it up in final focus (the last speech) so I know that you're going for that argument. Is it always the best strategy? Probably not, since there's a chance I may have not flowed it. That being said, the burden is not on you.

/

[4] Random, but Important to Me: The inflection between theory and small schools

As a debater from a small school that began the speech and debate program at my school, I'm very, very aware of the financial and educational difficulties that prevent small schools from accessing the same amount of resources as bigger schools. Big schools can compete at tournaments 5 times the number of rounds a small school can compete in. Not only do they receive more "practice" in competition, but they have big prep teams that have the ability to share and pay for information. In other words, when big schools compete against small schools, the rounds hold a greater value for small schools because they are one of the few opportunities throughout the year that they have to compete within the national circuit.

With all of that being said, if you are a school that chooses to run theory/K/any tech argument on a small school, I will vote for the theory (assuming it's winning: your opponents legitimately do not respond to or defend against what you're running). I've wrestled with this issue for a long time, but I've (you could honestly convince me otherwise on any given day) come to the conclusion that theory is a part of circuit debate, whether or not I like it. So yes, invitationals matter a lot to small schools because there are only so many they can compete within an year. But I am also of the opinion that basic theory knowledge is necessary for national circuit debate, and that it is essential for a pure trad team to face a theory round in order for the small school to work toward becoming better at circuit debate. How would they go about that given the lack of educational resources? Reddit, Discord, and asking others etc is probably the best option at the moment. But I think that the benefits of facing such a round, especially for a novice team or a small school is necessary for the long term and future rounds, since they will have to ultimately hit a tech round someday.

I am not a fan of "oppressor vs. oppressed" hierarchies within a non-technical sphere (outside of the scope of theory). Please do not try to convince me you are a small school or a big school, it doesn't matter. I've seen millionaires attending Title IV schools and low-income students attending private college prep boarding schools. I've seen it all. This is why I intentionally left out my definition for the two terms-- it opens up a can of worms that is really unnecessary.

If you are running theory on a small school, all I ask is that you do it for a legitimate reason (plagiarism, etc). If you run something wild like a really badly, convoluted theory that has no response by your opponent, I will vote for you. But not only would I feel terrible about myself after that, but I think that would just be a sucky round to judge overall. It would be off-putting rather than productive. The choice is yours.*

If you are a small school or a team that doesn't know how to respond to theory: Just respond to the argument. No matter if you call it a K, T, or a DA, it's always an argument at the end of the day. Debate like you always do, and don't let your opponents intimidate you with a bunch of technical jargon. That is the best advice I can give you for now.

* If a newer/smaller team can successfully argue such theory is abusing the system (ie not conducive of an educational environment), I almost always default to the RVI (the team that argues that the theory is abusing the system).

/

I'm constantly changing this paradigm over the tournaments I judge. If you ever have a question about something, disagree with my paradigm, and or want to offer thoughts on how I could improve how I judge, feel free to lmk!

If you have any questions, my email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu

Hello! I look forward to listening to your debate and learning from your team's logic, creativity and critical thinking.

Here is a little bit of background about me. I have a significant legal background, but I am fairly new to Parli debate. I am a parent of novice debaters. To help me follow your team's arguments, please speak slowly and clearly. In addition, please clearly organize your arguments. Finally, please note that I have a high regard for civility. It takes a considerable amount of strength to remain calm, logical and civil in the midst of a heated debate.

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun. This does not matter though.

Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.

This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.

I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.

The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

I will flow on my laptop and mostly by ear. I will only look at the speech doc to see if you are clipping (though I will not call out clipping unless it is patently egregious).

The above comment is in response to the shockingly terrible state of flowing and evidence ethics in our activity. If you ask for a marked doc before running CX/Prep and the speech marked less than 3 cards, I am capping your speaks at a 29. This does not apply if you take prep or CX to ask for a marked doc or wait until CX is over for the marked doc. That is perfectly fine.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds

3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.

TLDR:

I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. These days, most debaters are more scared of incompetent judges than their opponents themselves. As such, I will never intervene unless necessary (I HAVE LISTED CLAIMS I REFUSE TO VOTE ON SO BE WARNED), and you should feel free to postround however aggressively you may want.

The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.

That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds like no neg fiat and expect to win.

Non negotiable

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.

Ad homs/ arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The round will end.

Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. (NO YOU CAN NOT GO FOR NO 2NR I MEETS).

Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Misc: All of this can be changed with one word. Debate it out.

"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."

Offense/Defense Good.

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Logic outweighs

TJFs are questionable but winnable.

Insert rehighlighting for CP solvency advocates/defense. Read for everything else. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

New to Judging, appreciate normal pace, meaningful elaborations, quality over quantity and RESPECTFUL debating.

Hello debaters,

I am a parent judge and have been judging for over a year. I value quality over quantity. Please speak slowly.

Thank you.

Good luck!

I have limited exposure to debate, and to American politics in general as I’m a Canadian immigrant and just got my US citizenship. I follow reasonable logic and arguments but I don’t like overblown impacts. I prefer eloquent speaking to fast paced loud arguing, and I can’t take notes fast enough for spreading.