Evan Arena- Class of 2026

Email for email chains or questions: evanarena26@marist.com

Current Debater- Marist School Varsity Debater

Policy Debate

I went to Georgetown camp this summer. I have knowledge of the topic.

Overall, I like technically clean debating. Tell me where to flow, and I'll flow it there. Tell me in your rebuttals what I'm voting on.

Speed is fine, but be clear. Especially online, it isn't always easy to understand people so keep that in mind. Analytics need to be slower than cards.

Use all of CX if you can, end a speech, or CX if you're out of things to say. I think it's more strategic to concede 20 seconds than to let your opponents prep for that time. Try to use all of your speech time. It doesn't look good when you are just standing there. Make something up. Be nice in CX.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. For condo, I usually don't vote unless it is extreme. 1-3 off case I usually stand towards condo good, but you can always win that it is bad. You need to make me believe that it is bad or good.

DA: Not really much to say. Link, UQ. Win it, make it make sense.

Order matters. Put your offense first. 2AR and 2NR: Slim down your arguments. Start with your strongest argument and tell me why you should win. Make it clear.

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Hey y'all!

Please add me on the chain: destefanoa25@trinityprep.org

TLDR (completely stolen from Jake Kaminski because I agree with pretty much all of it)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

this is my third year competing, and i have done both Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. in LD, i primarily ran fem k's or soft left fem framework. in PF, i have tended to run more traditional arguments but always love running framework. i'm familiar with theory debate, but don't typically run it myself.

PF SPECIFIC:

• summary and final should be consistent (commit to the collapse you make in summary... don't completely switch it up in final)
• weighing can make or break the round
• send a doc if you're going to go fast
• collapse should probably happen in summary at the latest
• please signpost
• treat your opponents with respect

*novice specific:

competing for the first couple of times can definitely be intimidating, but trust that every round is a learning experience! don't hesitate to ask me questions after the round, and i will do my best to answer in a way that helps you move forward as a debater!

ask any other questions you might have before round :)

Estella Hood '2025

Email: estellahood25@marist.com

I am a junior at Marist School and a 2nd year policy debater. I am a 1A and a 2N. I enjoy listening to framework and T debates. I also like to see overviews before speeches and uniqueness walls. I will keep track of time during the round, but I would appreciate it if you did too! Please add my email to the email chain prior to the debate!

I'm a 4th year PF debater at Marist School in Georgia.

Add me to your email chains

matthewhorne24@marist.com maristpublicforum@gmail.com

If you spread, send a speech doc

Tech>truth

Time your own speeches, prep, and crossfires.

I pay attention to cross solely for speaker points, if something happens that I should know about, let me know in the speech.

Please weigh and

Collapse in your summaries. Narrowing down the debate is important in the back half of rounds

Email me if you have any questions about rfd.

Rather than appealing to emotional words, I would definitely prefer arguments with evidence.

Contentions and their validity are important; however, I put more importance on how you can address rebuttal posed by opponents.

I prefer to hear concise and well-summarized arguments instead of attempting to cover many points with fast-paced speech.

Would like participants to talk clearly. Not very fast.

Be respectful to opponents.

Follow the PF Debate Rules

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2017-2021).

email: lamackey@usc.edu

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact (don't forget links or you lose impacts and have nothing to weigh)

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh!!! It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Please signpost. At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- Please collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I do not like theory and would prefer if it stayed out of the PF space. If you do choose to run theory, please make sure you dumb it down for me and your opponents, otherwise debate becomes an inaccessible space.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- rude or disrespectful comments of any kind will not be tolerated and will surely result in a loss for your team

- Have fun, debate doesn't always need to be so serious!

experience:

debating pf since oct 2019, so fairly technical and flow-oriented, been judging since 2022. i have some bp experience but that was all the way back in 2019/2020; haven't judged for that format before.

basics:

• tabula rasa. tech >>> truth (tell me why climate change matters. don't throw it at me). i don't like extinction impacts mainly because if everyone who ever ran a extinction impact (looking at policy debaters) was actually right, we'd have died off decades ago, but i'll evaluate them just the same as any other impact. just weigh

• warranting wins my heart (and a better speech, possibly better speaks, maybe even my vote~) that isn't to say, though, that y'all can warrant in one speech and then not mention it for the rest of the round, please extend clearly if you want me to vote for your argument

• do things for yourself. not under any circumstances will i ever be happy with doing things for you- i will not be happy if you make me do the weighing myself, the collapsing myself, essentially anything you want me to evaluate in the round. i'm lazy, don't like doing things i don't have to do

• i personally don't care whether you turn your camera on or not for online tournaments, but please tell me your name at least?? before every speech?? you don't want me giving your speaks to your partner or something

• i follow the point scale given on tab for speaker points, though i'm generally really generous with speaks

• i am fine with speed so long as you speak clearly. if your speed makes your opponent struggle to follow along, i will ask you to slow down- a second warning will result in deducted speaks as speaking inaudibly/unintelligibly excludes debaters from being able to interact with arguments to the best of their ability, as well as brings down the value of the round. in other words- if you talk 300+ WPM (talking to you policy debaters), send a speech doc or slow down drastically- we can't keep up. lmao i do appreciate your ability to speak fast, but this is a debate round, not a talent show

• please use warranted cards/evidence in your speeches! i will call for a piece of evidence if necessary. on that same note, i will only call for cards if: a) i was told to call for it, b) it doesn't seem valid to me, or c) i need to clarify a point on my flow. if i or the opponents call for a card and you cannot provide it within sufficient time or at all, i will treat it like your opinion or a piece of analysis

• summary and final focus should mirror. once again, i'm not happy with having to do things for you. i will not, under any circumstances, buy a point brought up in FF but not in summary- i won't extend your arguments for you. obviously i'm not going to evaluate new arguments in summary either, except in response to a new argument your opponents made- meaning you should reconstruct in second rebuttal. i will accept limited cross-applications of your case or previous arguments because those aren't new, but if you want to read new content do that when you can (and that means not in final focus. please. it's unfair and it's annoying.)

• weighing also wins my heart. tell me why your impacts are more significant, why your links/arguments are better, why i should care/vote your way. also, if you don't weigh my feedback for you will literally look something like "WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH" and yes this is sumn that's happened before lmao

• i have a limited understanding of theory, kritik or progressive arguments. please don't read them in general.

1. if you do, i won't be able to evaluate the round properly and may up making a decision otherwise construed 'unfair' or 'biased' - and while i've also complained to judges, to tabroom, to my academy director about unfair decisions, hey - this one's on you lmao
2. if you ABSOLUTELY MUST, MUST, MUST read your progressive arguments please explain them to me (and the opponents if their knowledge is lacking as well). if i still don't understand, sorry - ??

• whether offline or online, i'll give you ten seconds of grace time, but after that i will stop flowing and lower your speaks in accordance with how much time has elapsed over the speaking time allotted. i want to say i'll knock on the table, but i normally forget to do so - if the time's elapsed thirty seconds overtime i'll prolly just unmute and say sumn

• please read content warnings for potentially sensitive topics and ask if the opponents are alright with it; you must have an alternate case if not. i can and will drop you if my judgement decides the round is unsafe and this can happen at any time - i stick by the rules and am generally very law-abiding but i'm willing to risk getting in "trouble" if it means the round remains safe. this means that if you have an offensive case and you're speaking first in the round, i'll drop you and we can spend the rest of the round chitchatting about more pleasant (or unpleasant topics). or taking a nap. i'm up for both. pleasant will consist of "how's your day going" or any other questions you might have, unpleasant might be if you genuinely don't understand why your case is offensive and then i have to explain to you why it is, and since most people i judge are, like, four years older i don't think it's going to be very fun for you or i

• on a more cheerful note, if you're a kpop stan guess my top boy group + my bias OR mention kpop somehow in your speech, relating it to the topic. then you get +0.5 speaks <33 or if the round ends early/you get there before your opps do and we're not constrained for time we can fangirl/fanboy together

if you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round or email me at hstellajjang@gmail.com . good luck to y'all

I am currently in my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

Hi, my name is Jiana and I have been debating (mainly PF and policy) for 3 years now.

When it comes to your arguments, please note:

1. Go at your own pace, anything's fine with me, but clarity is important. If you want to go at an extremely fast pace, however, you will have to send me your case so that there's nothing I'm missing out on.
2. Always respect your opponents, interrupting someone in crossfire, or other manners or rudeness won't be looked favourably upon.
3. Use roadmaps, but don't make them too long please.
4. When you're sharing cards, please send the link as well as an excerpt from the link that is relevant to the argument.

When I'm deciding my ballot, here are the main things you'll have to do to prove to me that your argument is valid:

1. you reinstate your points throughout the case, and with appropriate weighing, prove that yours is the most credible
2. you refute your opponents cases and rebuttal points appropriately
3. use credible sources
4. again, WEIGH, if you convince me that your magnitude, impacts and timeframe are more beneficial to the case, the win will most probably be yours.
5. respect is also very important, if you're not respectful to me, your partner or your opponent, I will definitely take that into consideration when choosing my ballot.

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

To start, I want you to know I enter every debate/round neutral and unbiased on the topic of discussion. I do not bring my own opinions/beliefs or reasonings from prior debates/rounds into my decision for the round I am judging at that time. Like a juror I listen to and watch both sides then make a decision on which team did better in their presentation and convinced me they should prevail. Each round is different. Just because the pro side won the last round does not mean the con won't win the next round (& vice-versa).

Facts/evidence and referencing supporting documentation/sources are important and necessary but the presentation is just as important as the facts. I can’t judge or be convinced of anything if what your saying is unintelligible or I can’t follow your argument. Don’t talk too fast. Annunciate, use commas, periods and strategic pauses. I realize you may have a lot to say/present but if it is not comprehensible and/or everything you say is one big sentence, that does not help your case. If you talk in a monotone voice, I may fall asleep. Keep my attention. Make eye contact. Don’t stare down on your notes/paper the whole time. Glance down/away as needed. Be organized, professional and courteous. Being eager, animated and/or passionate is good but I have an aversion to unprofessional, discourteous, smug and condescending behavior. Being argumentative is okay but excessive badgering and/or interrupting the other side needlessly is frown upon.

Good luck and have fun.