Marist Scrimmage Series 2
2023 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHey there!
I am an alum of Grady (now Midtown) who graduated in 2012 and participated in Speech and Debate. I have been away from the debate community for many years (7-9+ years) but am returning to judge. I participated in Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Original Oratory, and Duo Interp.
Last year, I started judging novice policy as a way to reconnect with students, who are my favorite part of speech and debate.
In round preferences:
1) Debaters please tell me your initials or introduce yourselves in your first speech.
2) Both teams should aim to keep track of their own prep time and speech times. I will be timing the round to make sure it runs smoothly, however, I can sometimes forget and pay a lot of attention to who is speaking!
3) If you and your teammates have multiple computers and all join the Zoom, please choose one computer to speak into, and mute those who are not speaking during that speech.
4) For novice policy, the biggest thing I look for is the flow of the argument and if each debater connects their arguments and points across all the speeches in the round.
Kaitlin Algeo
4th year debater at Marist School
she/her
yes, add me to email chains - kaitlinalgeo25@marist.com
Turn on your camera.
You need to read and defend a plan in front of me.
Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponent's arguments
Limited K knowledge - prefer CP/DA debates.
23-24 updates: assume I have zero topic knowledge beyond a basic level, explain your niche crypto terms if you are using them
add me to the email chain - nva.debate@gmail.com
westminster '24
I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of a good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to ethos and pathos appeals when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the opponent shows the evidence supporting the claim to be faulty because of the author's qualifications, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestants and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and may lose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may decide to side with the deeper argument if the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high-quality arguments with clashes and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward the quality of argument much more than the quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest.
Concerning topicality and other issues outside of the debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based on my opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just the statement of a claim without more.
Hi there! :) I am currently a third year debater at Woodward Academy!
Yes! please include me in the email chain -- 25kbrown@woodward.edu
A few things I like to see from debaters!
- Utilizing CX. CX is your opportunity to jab at the other team, poke holes in their arguments, ask for clarification, and give me reasons to rethink particular arguments. Please take the time to think about how you can set up your arguments and Strat.
- BE NICE!! yes debate is competitive but there is a such thing as "friendly competition." So please, be nice and kind toward your opponents.
- Try giving rebuttal speeches off the flow! I love to see debator's challenge themselves by debating off the flow while still being clear and effective. This raises speaks through the roof!
- Please invite clash and in depth arguments. It's going to be very hard for me to vote for you, if I don't understand your argument or if its not fleshed out. Prove it to me! Give me evidence based reason why I should vote for you!
- Lastly, HAVE FUN! :) let loose, and use these opportunities to learn and grow as debators.
If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com
he/him
About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.
Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.
FOR PF/LD:
I am primarily a policy judge. This means
- I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.
2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.
3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.
4. Ask me any specific questions you have.
FOR POLICY:
I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.
CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.
DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.
T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.
K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.
FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.
Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.
Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.
Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.
Anna Jane Harben - Fourth Year Debater for Woodward (AJ is also fine)
Pronouns - She/her
Please put me on the email chain 25aharben@woodward.edu
I've been to camp so I have pretty good topic knowledge.
Main things to remember about debate:
- Be nice — there is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive
- Argument clash — it's important that your arguments interact with other arguments in the debate and that you support your claims with warrants
- Line by line is essential — it makes it much easier to follow the debate when you have clear line by line
- Be clear — speaking fast is great until no one can understand you. If you're not clear its better to slow down
- Please ask me questions that's the only way to learn!
Use CX time to your advantage. It's extra speech time for you and a place to set up your strategy for the rest of the debate
Rishabh Jain (he/him)
Woodward '24, debated for 3.5 years. Northwestern '28.
Influences: Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Sam Wombough, Gabriel Morbeck
I have decent topic knowledge. I have no topic knowledge. I also have not thought about debate in a long time.
Novice Version:
I hope yall take enjoyment in this activity. Debate can be an incredibly fun and rewarding experience, and I'll do my best as a judge to make it that way for yall. The main things i want yall to do is:
- have fun!
- be nice!
- be clear and practice line by line!
- don't clip - if you don't know what this is, feel free to ask me
- send me the chain!
- flow and look like you're invested in the debate!
- tell me you know, or at least you're trying/pretending to know what you're talking about.
IDK if this is ever gonna be relevant but I think the novice division is more for learning how to debate, with the topic as a vehicle for core topic args to be introduced so novices can learn how to apply topic arguments to debate and learn how arguments interact with each other. If that doesn't make any sense, just know that I don't like it when novices run Process CPs or goofy stuff their varsity/coaches told them to run and win because the other team has no idea what they're doing.
Actual Paradigm:
Feel free to post round - every judge should be able to defend their decision, and if they can't, that's on me. Just don't scream at me please.
Tech over truth. Ideological predispositions are irrelevant to my decision calculus. However, "My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants." - Truf.
Tech over truth is not to say I'll vote on dropped ASPEC hidden in some random CP shell with a humongous smile on my face. While I will vote on it, I probably won't be happy about it at all. The best debates (and the ones that result in higher speaker points) are where two teams who are able to communicate clearly and confidently demonstrate deep understanding of a topic. I also think truer arguments are easier to win on.
FYI - an argument is a claim and a warrant - if a claim is dropped, but it has no warrant nor an implication on the rest of the debate, it's probably going to be completely irrelevant to how I evaluate the debate.
Do what you do best. This paradigm is a lot shorter now because I have little to no argumentative preferences due to being out of debate for a while. Debate is never serious enough so that a judge's argumentative preferences should override students' effort and hard work, so I'll do my best to not let that happen.
Stuff that might be useful to you:
- Inserting rehighlights is okay as long as you explain what the rehighlight says.
- I think PTIV is true.
- Not good for KvK.
- Err on overexplanation when it comes to T on this topic.
- I'm a sucker for high quality evidence. Please read some! Debate is a research activity too.
- I'm good for any CP and DA and think those debates are where I'm at my best judging.
- Debate's not a game of chivalry. "Losing honorably" doesn't help you. A win's a win.
Ways to get speaker points:
- knowing what you're talking about
- being nice
- sounding smart and confident and clear
- having good evidence and explaining said good evidence
- judge instruction
- doing line by line
- well formatted and organized evidence + docs
Ways to lose speaker points:
- being slow to send out stuff, being kinda late to start the round
- unclarity (is that a word?)
- rudeness or disrespectfulness
- dropping multiple pieces on the line by line
Good luck!
Ella Jones '24
3rd year debater
Hey y’all! I am a junior at Marist School. Please add me to the email chain: michellelee26@marist.com
misc
- Please time your prep time and speeches please! While I do time speeches, don't count on me for keeping track of prep time. I will automatically start your timer on your first word; if a speech goes on for more than 5 seconds over, I will say something.
- Tag teaming is fine with me - it gets problematic with me when your partner takes over the majority of CX. Please use your CX to show what you know!
- Signpost please! Simple things as stating "next" or "and" when moving from evidence to evidence or argument to argument will boost your speaker points and make it easier for me to get your arguments. On a similar note, please give a roadmap before starting your speech, but normally I'll ask for one if it hasn't been provided yet. It's fine if you don't follow your roadmap, but please signpost or else it will make it harder for me to get arguments down on my flow.
- Since this topic is relatively new, it's understandable to me if you don't know complex jargon. However, you should still be able to answer questions sustainably in CX - it will be very clear to me if you don't know your aff/off case positions. Citing authors in CX is also very impressive, and I encourage y'all to try to extend specific warrants from your evidence.
- Flow speeches. It will help you to better understand what the other team is saying. If you are planning to ask the other team about a piece of evidence, make sure they have read it in their speech.
- If you need to mark cards, please do so completely ("mark the card at (x)"). Also, make sure to mark your own speech doc.
- Don't be mean. This should go without saying.
content wise (please bear in mind that while these are my general ideas, I can be convinced otherwise!!)
- Tech over truth.
- Impact calc and judge direction will raise your speaks and make it easier for me to evaluate the round. Please put it at the top of your final rebuttals, and that will be greatly beneficial!
- Case: please read and defend some sort of a plan in front of me - otherwise it's very easy for me to side with the neg on framework. Specific case answers and case debating is really good to see, otherwise I can be persuaded that arguments are too vague and don't apply. Big stick plans are good, but so are smaller affs.Nontraditional Ks are good with me as well, just make sure that you are within the bounds of the topic enough to give the neg ground.
- DAs: if the debate comes to case v DA, you have to have impact calc starting as early as the 2AC. This makes it so much easier to evaluate the debate and to see which impacts come first. It can get very messy without impact calc. DA turns the case is a very good argument.
- CPs: most CPs are fine with me. I think condo is good, but I can be convinced. If you want me to judge kick the counterplan I can do that, but you have to tell me. This should go without saying, but please have a NB for your counterplan. If the neg loses the CP, I can still give them the NB or whatever else they read.
- T: T is fine, but you have to have a TVA. If you're confident on T, go for it. Also, please don't hide it (especially for ASPEC). Please put it on it's own flow
- K: I'm very easy to persuade on both sides for the K - again, there has to be a good framework debate and judge instruction for me to vote for you. Please explain K jargon - if it's not your typically traditional K assume I won't know jargon. Also, please have links specific to the aff.
Most importantly, have fun!
John Masterson — Fourth-Year Debater for Woodward
25jmasterson@woodward.edu
IPR Topic Knowledge: Attended 7 week Mich Camp and many first semester tournaments
Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman are my greatest influences in debate, I will probably agree with most things they agree on, here are their paradigms
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=maggie&search_last=berthiaume
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman
General
Clarity, Clash with Opponents, and Respecting the Opponent should be essential
Tech > Truth. This reaches an extent but will vote on dropped arguments if I'm given a reason why to. Truthful arguments are easier to prove.
Don't clip cards
Trick debating < Clash (However depending on the arg I will vote for it but may be more lenient towards the other team) well researched args are best
I respect good research and high-quality cards. My favorite debates to judge are well-prepped and explained specific strategies to an aff or a team that can line by line and number their arguments.
I’d say I’m more neg leaning on theory in general and think most theory is resolved by rejecting the argument (except Condo) but I could be convinced otherwise. I’m pretty persuaded by comparing to past topics (I would prob get references to water, NATO, or FR best but references to prior topics may require simplicity or more explanation) or justifications under interps. I think under the IP topic, neg ground might not be as terrible as most 2n’s have described it, personally not a lot of affs have a strong defense of an IP key warrant or only method of resolving whatever impact.
Feel free to ask any questions pre-round
Aaly Nanji — Senior at Woodward Academy, Class of 2025
Include me on the email chain, aalynanji@gmail.com
IPR Topic Experience: DDI 4-Week Camp
My biggest influence in debate:
Maggie Berthiaume (Check her paradigm if you want)
General
Be respectful, have fun, learn from the round.
Tech > Truth, but explain why dropped arguments matter in the debate.
Persuasion, use it. It can make bad arguments into good ones, and good ones into bad ones.
Clarity > Speed, if I can't hear/understand your args, I can't flow it.
Make sure your cards actually say what you want them to.
Slow down on analytics
Condo — Its good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
Rex Nassah- Class of 2026
Email for email chains or questions: RexNassah26@marist.com
Current Debater- Marist School Varsity Debater
Speech: Original Oratory (Former Policy Debater)
I've been to state. I have knowledge of the topic.
Overall, I like technically clean debating. Tell me the order so I know where to flow. Tell me in your rebuttals for what I'm voting on.
Speaking quickly is good, but be clear so I can understand you. Analytics must be slower than cards so I can understand the data.
Utilize all of CX if you can, conclude a speech, or CX if you run out of things to say. Be sociable and friendly in CX to me and your opponents. Push to use all the duration in your speech I think it's wiser than just ending it and conceding prep time for your opponent.
CPs: CPs need to be competitive. I usually tilt towards condo good so don't read overly much off-case (1-3 off is good). If your aff, you could use your time to present to me why condo is bad, helping me believe it is bad could help you win.
DA: I like most DAs to win it, construct it to make sense, and relate to the plan.
Senior Varsity debater from Woodward
For the email chain: 25lpaladugu@woodward.edu
Top-level — Just try to clash with the other team's arguments and do impact calculus (I promise you'll get super high speaks if you do both!)
Tech > Truth. Still, if an argument is dropped, the opposing team still has to extend it with warrants.
Clash > tricks.
Clarity > Speech. Please try to be clear!
Tanvi Pamulapati
3rd year debater, Woodward Academy
I want to be on the email chain - 25tpamulapati@woodward.edu
Good things you should do :
- Speak clearly, prioritize clarity over speed, although both are essential.
- Do line by line and FLOW, it's just good debating.
- Be nice and fair throughout the round, debate is all one community (no clipping, lying about cards you read, nothing cheaty)
- Do your best in CX to ask in depth questions, not just filler, and understand the line between confident and rude
- Clash is good, both sides should have a clear story by the rebuttal speeches.
I'm happy to answer any questions, have fun while you debate!!
Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.
Pronouns: she/they
Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.
Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate
Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.
General Philosophy
I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.
As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.
I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.
Argument Specific preferences:
Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.
Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.
Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.
Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.
Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.
Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.
For rookie/novice debaters:
If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.
Jayden Rachal- Class of 2026
email: jaydenrachal26@marist.com
Current Debater- Marist School Varsity Debater
Policy Debate-
I went to Georgetown camp this summer and have current topic knowledge.
I like clean debating; tell me in your rebuttals why I am voting for you. Guide my flows.
Rebuttals-Put your winning argument first and have a strong impact calc. It's strategic if you are aff to kick an adv and for neg to kick an off.
Condo- Typically I lean toward Condo Good however, if you read an excessive amount of off I would understand the affs argument. Also if your aff and you miss an arg because of time, you could use that to explain why Condo is bad.
DA- I like most DAs: Make sure you extend your arguments well.
CP- Make them competitive, and theory is good.
---
General Background:
I debated at Maine East (2016-2020) on the TOC circuit and at the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023), including the NDT. Currently, I work in the tech industry and am an Assistant Coach for the University of Pittsburgh.
My debate career focused on critical arguments (e.g., Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism). I particularly enjoy judging clash debates, or policy vs. critical. Traditional policy debaters should note my limited experience in policy v policy debates and rank me significantly lower / accordingly on their judging preferences.
If you follow @careerparth on tiktok, I will boost your speaker points.
Key Principles
The most important thing to know: If you make an argument, defend it fully. Do not disavow arguments made by you or your partner in speeches or cross-examination. Instead, defend them passionately and holistically. Embrace the implications of your strategy in all relevant aspects of the debate. Hesitation about your own claims is the quickest way to lose my ballot.
For reference, my judging philosophy aligns with those of Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik.
Debate Philosophy
I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Using examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and help establish your expertise on the topic.
While I have preferences, I will adapt to your argument style. I don't exclude debaters based on their choice of arguments, as long as they avoid racist, sexist, or similarly offensive content.
Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals and those who successfully give rebuttals with prep time remaining and/or off the flow.
---
Public Forum Debate
I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.
I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.
I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.
Give an order before your speech and the faster you conclude the debate, the higher your speaker points will be.
Add me to the email chain: suhanidebate@gmail.com
0 Topic knowledge for this year
Tech > Truth
High speaker points for making me laugh
Ask for 30 speaks and get 25
In novice year, being a good person and making your round more educational is more important than getting good speaks.
Will never vote for you if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.